reported front the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.

reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; That, to meet the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee or Council on Education whether the attention of the Privy Council has been draw to the evidence and verdict given at an inquest held at Heaton Norris on 9th January 1899, from which it appears that a mistake by a doctor's unqualified dispenser resulted in the patient's death; and whether, seeing that, notwithstanding that the Pharmacy Act enacts that sellers of poison must possess a qualification, it is not illegal for doctors to employ any class of unqualified persons to dispense medicines, however danger—ous or poisonous, the Government will take steps to ensure that medicines containing poisons shall only be dispensed by those holding either medical or pharmaceutical qualification?

The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative, and the Privy Council have been in communication with the General Medical Council on the subject. The Executive Committee of that body, while admitting that occasional accidents may arise from the employment by qualified medical practitioners of careless or incompetent dispensers, consider such cases to be very rare, and believe the best protection. afforded to the public to be the responsibility of the practitioners for the acts or defaults of the servant whom he employs. Instances of such mistakes are not confined to dispensers employed by medical practitioners.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having given careful consideration, according to promise, to all the circumstances advanced in favour of the relief of colonial wine from the new duty, he is now in a position to announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government upon the question?

I thought I had already made it clear that we did not feel able to entertain the proposal to exempt colonial wines from the new duty.

said he would call attention to the matter in Committee.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction exists amongst the fishermen of Freswick, Caithness, in consequence of the pier which has been erected there, under the Highlands and Islands Works Act, being practically of no use owing to the shallowness of the basin; will he explain why the plans and specifications that were sanctioned by the Board of Trade have not been carried out; and at whose instance were the modifications made?

I am not aware that there is great local dissatisfaction at Freswick owing to the shallowness of the basin, but it is true that during the severe storms of winter a quantity of stones have been washed into it. This may be expected to occur frequently, and it will devolve on the County Council to have them removed. The plans and specifications sanctioned by the Board of Trade have been carried out with the single modification that at the request of the fishermen and with the approval of the consulting engineer a stair was substituted for a ladder.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government propose, in order to provide a school for the education of seamen for their navy, to give a bounty or compensation d'armament to all ships built or owned in France; and, if so, what it would amount to on a vessel of 4,000 tons in commission for a year; whether it is proposed, in order to promote the building and owning in France of merchant ships, to materially increase the existing bounty system; and, if so, what is the amount proposed to be given to a new steamer of 4,000 tons gross register running 6,000 miles in a year; and what are the terms of the present bounties given to vessels built and owned in France?

We have received no official information to the effect of the first two paragraphs of the Question, but a Report from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris will be called for. Full particulars (which are too long to be given within the limits of a reply to a Question) as to the terms of the present French bounties on shipping will be found at page 19 of the Reports already laid before Parliament (Commercial, No. 2, 1898).

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has suspended for three months the master's certificate of Mr. E. R. Beveridge, master of the ship "J. V. Troop," on the ground that Mr. Beveridge was fined £5 by the Liverpool city justices for an assault upon a seaman; whether the Board of Trade habitually exercises the power given to it by Section 469 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, by sitting as a court of review upon every case decided by a, court of law in which any master, mate, or engineer has been convicted of any Offence; whether, in considering any conviction for any offence committed by a master, mate, or engineer, the Board of Trade takes into account, or attaches any importance to, the question whether the offence was such as to show professional incompetency or inadequacy in the capacity of master, mate, or engineer; on what grounds the Board added to this penalty the far more serious punishment of a suspension of Captain Beveridge's certificate and a consequent deprivation of his means of livelihood for three months, and thereby punished him a second time for the same offence; whether he or any member of the Board was present at the proceedings at Liverpool; and, if not, upon what report of those proceedings lie acted; whether he called upon captain Beveridge for any explanation or defence before imposing upon him this additional punishment, and whether Captain Beveridge was in any way heard in his own defence by the Board of Trade before that second penalty was imposed whether the proceedings of the Board of Trade, in considering this matter and the infliction of this punishment, were in any sense public or altogether private; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the report of the proceedings of the court and any other documents which were considered by the Board of Trade before arriving at the conclusion to suspend Mr. Beveridge's certificate?

In pursuance of their powers, the Board of Trade have suspended the certificate of Mr. E. R. Beveridge, of the ship "J. V. Troop," for three months, upon his conviction at Liverpool for a brutal assault upon a member of his crew. When an officer is convicted of such an offence, it is a rule of the Department to deal with his certificate. The Department did not review the decision of the court or the evidence upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction. In. a cease which seriously affected the defendant's character as a shipmaster, the Board of Trade were bound to take action.

Am I to understand that, without hearing the captain in his own defence, the right honourable Gentleman has suspended him on an exparte statement?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that since the cheap rate of postage to India heavy additional work has fallen upon the sorters of the Sea. Post Office between Bombay and Aden; whether in March last the number of bags in a single mail exceeded 1,000, whereas five years ago the average was barely half that number; whether the sorters have usually to work from 6.30 a.m. to 11 p.m.; and whether he will cause such reasonable additions to be made to the staff as will prevent excessive pressure and unduly long hours of work in a tropical climate?

I have received as yet no information as to the amount of additional work thrown upon the sorters of the Sea Post Office by the recent reduction in the rate of postage, but I will communicate with the Government of India on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state how much of the Rx.9,850,500, entered in the Revised Estimate of the Indian Budget as capital expenditure on Railways and Irrigation Works during the year 1898–9, was taken from cash balances, and how much from loans; whether he will also state how much of The Rx.10,433,600 of capital expenditure proposed to be spent in, 1899–1900 for similar public works will be raised from loans, and how much from current revenues; and what sum of this large capital outlay will be allocated for water storage and irrigation purposes?

The estimates show, as regards railways, a reduction of the deficiency from Rx.2,660,000 in 1896–91 and Rx.1,432,000 in 1897–98 to Rx.878,100 in 1898–99 and Rx.880,600 in 1899–1900. The honourable Member is, of course, aware that the variations In the deficiency are mainly dependent on the rate of exchange at which the payments in England are made. In India the profit on the working of the railways was 5.20 per cent. in 1896, 5.08 in 1897 (when the famine and plague affected the returns), and 5.30 in 1898. In respect of irrigation the estimates show a profit of Rx.239,600 in 1898–99 and of Rx.116,300 in 1899–1900.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received any communication from the High Commissioner for Canada and the Agents-General of the other nine self-governing Colonies, urging the exemption of Colonial wine from the operation of the new duties, on account of the injury it is feared they will do to a comparatively young industry, and calling attention to the disadvantage under which it already labours compared to the foreigner, owing to distance, freight, and having to import the casks from England; and if he will lay any such to communication upon the Table for the information of Members before the Finance Bill comes into Committee?

The answer to the first, paragraph is in the affirmative. I will lay the letter from the Agents-General upon the Table.

I beg to ask whether a cablegram has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the Prime Ministers of the seven Governments of Australasia deprecating that a course is to be taken by this country at variance with the better dispositions now prevailing in favour of making differences in respect of British goods; and whether New Zealand, Tasmania, and Western Australia have actually in preparation Bills in this sense?

A telegram to the effect stated in the Question has been received from the Prime Minister of New South Wales on behalf of the Prime Ministers of the Australasian Colonies. I am not aware that such Bills are actually in preparation in these Colonies.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether it is possible to grant to-the members of the Indian Civil Service the same advantages with regard to passage money which are allowed to police and forest officers?

The two cases which are contrasted in my right honourable Friend's-Question do not stand on the same footing. The Indian civilian has advantages both before he leaves for India, and after his arrival there, which the police and forest officers do not enjoy. But on the other hand it has never been the practice to pay for his passage to India, and I see no sufficient reason, as at present advised, for making any change in this respect.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education when the Returns relating to the excessive employment of children of school age will be in the hands of Members?

The Return will be immediately presented to the House, but I am told that it will take about a month to print.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the. Home Deportment whether his attention has been drawn to the restriction on Sunday labour in foreign countries with respect to the publication of Sunday newspapers; whether he is aware that in Germany the law is very strict in providing that a newspaper may be printed during the night from Saturday to Sunday, but that the distributors must have finished their work by eight or nine o'clock in the morning; and that no newspaper can be bought in Berlin after 10 o'clock on Sunday morning; while no newspaper is allowed to work its staff on Sundays with the exception of two, which have a special arrangement with. the police, who see that none of the staff work seven days a week; whether he is aware that in Vienna no daily newspaper appears on Monday morning, which, combined with the fact that the Sunday edition is almost entirely produced on Saturday, secures for every newspaper worker a holiday on Sunday; and whether the Government see their way to provide, by some analogous arrangement, for the suppression of Sunday labour in this country in connection with newspaper work?

I have seen certain information recently published in one of the newspapers on the subject referred to in the Question. With respect to my own sympathies and the action of the Government I have nothing to add to what I recently stated in the House. I cannot, however, undertake to propose legislation in the direction indicated.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate why the returns of the allocation of the contributions to Scotland, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889, the Local Taxation Act, 1890, and the Education and Local Taxation Account (Scotland) Act, 1892, for the years ending 31st March 1897 and 1898 are not published; what was the amount paid under sub-section (6) of section 2 of the Act of 1892; and what was the sum paid to (1) school boards and (2) voluntary schools during the year ending 31st March 1898?

As regards the first part of the honourable Member's Question, the returns therein referred to have, as hitherto laid before Parliament, included columns showing how the local authorities applied the amounts received by them respectively out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account. Considerable difficulty and consequent delay have occurred in the collection of these particulars. After consideration of the matter, the Secretary for Scotland proposes to cause a Return to be laid before Parliament for the two years specified these particulars, but showing in summary the payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account. This can be done within the next fortnight, leaving the Return of the application of the money by the local authorities to be subsequently issued. As regards the second portion of the Question, there was no residue available for payment to the Scotch Education Department under section 2 (b) of the 1892 Act for the year 1896–7, but in 1897–8 there was a residue of 116,202 0s. 11d. which was duly paid over. As regards the third part of the Question, the statistical tables of the Department showing the grants paid to different classes of schools, are drawn up for each year ending 30th September, not for that ending 31st March. The following is the statement of grants paid to school boards and Voluntary schools respectively during the year ended 31st March 1898: School board, £984,049 4s. 9d.; Voluntary schools, £157,922 8s. 9d.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the protests of the four Governments of the Cape, Natal, the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal, and the disapproval of Sir Alfred Milner, endorsed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, some Natives of South Africa have been brought over for exhibition at the show called "Savage South Africa"; and whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies can do anything to prevent the continuance of this part of the exhibition?

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that 50 Zulu men have been brought to London front South Africa to be exhibited at a show called "Savage South Africa"; that these men had been led to believe that they were to be employed at the Kimberley Mines in Cape Colony, and that passes had been given to them to travel to those mines and that a number of Native women have been obtained for the same show by means of advertisements which appeared in the British South African newspapers, stating that various wild horned animals, and also young Afrikander girls (good looking, and to Le slightly coloured), were wanted for the exhibition; whether the Governments of all the British Colonies and Dutch States in South Africa protested against the exportation of these Natives on the grounds of morality and of the interests both of the Natives themselves and their good government by these Colonies and States; whether he is aware that certain directors or officials of the Chartered Company have aided in the exportation of these Natives under the above circumstances; whether, seeing that this exhibition is to be opened on Monday next under illustrious patronage, the above facts have been brought to the notice of the personage concerned; and whether the Government Will now take any steps to procure the return of these Natives to their own country?

My attention has been called to the fact that 50 Zulus have been brought to London from South Africa, to be exhibited at a show called "Savage South Africa." I understand that passes were given to them to travel to the Kimberley Mines, but I am not informed whether they were led to believe that they were to be employed in the mines. I do not know whether Native women have also been brought ever for the smite slum. The Government of the British Colonies and the Dutch Republics in South Africa objected to the exportation of Natives for the above purpose on the ground stated. A director of the British South Africa Company is understood to have taken part in promoting the scheme before the opposition of the High Commissioner was known. The Administrator at Bulawayo, on being informed of the objection of the High Commissioner, refused to sanction the proposal to convey Matabeles to England. Her Majesty's Government have no power to compel the return of the Natives to South Africa. I can only express my regret and disapproval of their introduction. I had not observed that the show was to be opened by the Duke of Cambridge, but I now propose to communicate with his Royal Highness immediately on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary or State for the Home Department if he is prepared to bring in during the present Session a short Bill to amend the existing Law of Constructive Murder, or to support a Bill, the terms of which should be satisfactory to the Home Office, having the same object in view?

I am of opinion that the law of constructive murder does require amendment; but it is a very difficult subject to deal with, and I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will be able this Session to, introduce a Bill or otherwise to afford adequate facilities for the treatment of this important question. I may add that understand that the opinion of Her Majesty's Judges on this existing state of the law has been specially invited.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether reports have been received by the Indian Government from the British Agent at Ladak and Yarkand with regard to the-rapid decrease of the trade of British India with Russian Turkestan; whether those reports state that the trade is likely still further to decrease owing to the extension of the Russian railway to Andijan; and whether any suggestions are made in these reports which this, Government can adopt for the development of the trade of India with China, through Tibet, to make up for the loss thus sustained?

The Ladak trade returns for the latest year show a decrease in the trade of India with Chinese Turkestan, which the Assistant Resident in Ladak attributes to the duty levied in India upon hemp exported from Yarkand. The Resident in Kashmir thinks it possible that improved communications with Russian centres may cause further decline in the Indo-yarkand trade. The Government of India has been considering measures for improving trade between India and Tibet via Sikkim, and the Viceroy is in communication with the Imperial Commissioner of Tibetan affairs on the subject.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education why, in reference to the want of accommodation at Hurst Street Board School, Carlisle, the Education Department having called upon the Board in 1896, and again in February 1898, to supply further accommodation by erecting new schools, and having licensed a room in Edward Street as temporary accommodation until such schools were erected, now proposes to withdraw the licence for the temporary room without calling upon the Board to supply the further accommodation required in 1896 and 1898?

The reference appears to be to the Brook Street Board School. The Education Department suggested, rather than required, the supply of further accommodation. The School Board is now considering, after reference to the Department, whether any, and what, deficiency exists.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant or Ireland whether he is aware that by the recent rules issued by the Irish Land Commission under the provisions of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, it is prescribed that, on lodging the notice to fix a fair rent, such application shall be accompanied by an extract front the Valuation Books showing for the year referred to in The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, as the standard financial year the valua tion of the agricultural lands and the hereditaments comprised in the holding, such extract to be certified by the proper officer of the Valuation Office, Dublin; whether he is aware that Mr. Ralph Hall Reid, solicitor, in answer to, an application on behalf of clients for such certificates made on 24th April, received on 26th April from the chief clerk of the General Valuation Office, Dublin, a lithographed form with the signature of the chief clerk in lithograph stating that in consequence of the great number of applications for standard year certificates, it would not be possible to supply those asked for till "about ten days or a fortnight from the present time"; and whether, having regard to the fact that this delay on the part of the officials of a Government Office will postpone the service of the notices to fix a fair rent till after the 1st May, and consequently deprive tenants of a fair rent for a further period of half a year, any steps will he taken to place the tenants who, through default in the machinery of the Valuation Office, have not obtained the standard year certificate, in as good a position as if they had obtained such certificate on the, day of their application for the same, and had lodged the notice to fix a fair rent on that day?

The rule referred to in the first paragraph was issued on the 23rd March last, and relates to originating notices to fix fair rents lodged after the appointed day. Owing to the pressure of work on the staff of the Valuation Office it was not found possible to comply in every case before the 1st May with the numerous applications received for certificates of valuation for the standard year. With a view, however, to prevent any hardship arising in such cases, the Land Commissioners have already directed that applications to fix fair rents should, for the present, be received though unaccompanied by the certificates of valuation, and that, provided the certificates are furnished within a reasonable time, and no errors or discrepancies are found to exist between the certificate and the particulars in the originating notice which the parties are unable to remove, the case should be listed in due course.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to the Order made on 13th February 1897, dividing the parish of Chesham so as to constitute the ecclesiastical parish of St. John, Ashley Green, a separate parish for all civil and secular purposes, by which it was provided that the School Board of Chesham should cease to have jurisdiction within the area, of the new parish of Ashley Green, whether he gave notice to the Chesham School Board before making this alteration; (1) whether he is aware that the School Board had raised six different loans upon security of the rates of the whole parish before it was divided; (2) whether in dividing the parish he made any arrangement for adjusting the then existing debts and liabilities of the undivided parish, and in what form, and by whom, and on what basis that adjustment is to be made; (3) and who is liable for the portion of the old debts of the Chesham School Board which is secured upon the rates of the new parish of Ashley Green, and how that liability is to be enforced?

In reply to the first paragraph, the parish of Chesham was divided into Chesham and Ashley Green by order of the Bucks County Council. That order in itself took Ashley Green out of the Chesham school district. We have no power, in the absence of petition, to prevent such an order taking effect, although we may modify the order so as—in the words of the Act—to give effect to its objects. No petition was presented, and it was incumbent on the Local Government Board to make the confirming order accordingly. In this case the Education Department suggested that for educational purposes the two parishes should be a united district, but both the county council and Ashley Green represented to us that this was neither the purport nor the intention of the county council order, and we were requested to make this quite clear in the confirming order—which we did. We had no authority to do anything else. We were in communication with, and gave notice to, the Education Department, but not directly to the school board. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. In reply to the third paragraph, no request was made for the adjustment of liabilities in the confirming order, and no provision for adjustment was made. I have no authority to determine the point which is raised in the last paragraph, but I presume that the Chesham School Board is liable for all the debts it has incurred.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will supply a copy of the last annual Report of the inspector, the schedules of grants, and the annual cash statement of the, public elementary school at Wymington, Bedfordshire; and whether, in view of the frequent inconvenience caused by the time for the inspection of voluntary school accounts being now limited to six months in the year, he will so amend Article 89 of the Code as to restore the right of 12 months inspection, which was the law when he took office?

I shall be happy to supply the honourable Gentleman with the particulars referred to, but the Committee of Council are of opinion that the period fixed ill Article 89 of the Code is sufficient in ordinary cases, and they are not aware that frequent inconvenience has been caused by the alteration made in 1896.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a humble petition of British subjects resident in the Witwatersrand to Her Majesty has been received and presented; and whether any and what answer has been aide thereto?

The petition has been received, and is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Master of the National Schools at Tickhill, Yorkshire, personally receives fees from a number of the children in the schools; and whether this is a breach of Article 81 of the Code, which says "a school must not be conducted for private profit.?"

I understand that the master receives boarders in his house, and that these boarders attend the school. The master receives a fixed salary for his services; no fee is charged in the school; and there has been, so far as the Department is aware, no breach of article 81 of the Code.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can state the number of telegraphists short of the staff authorised for working the Central Telegraph Office between 11 a.m. and noon on the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, and 19th of April; and whether it is a fact that the dinner time of a large number of the workers was considerably delayed owing to the insufficiency of the staff?

The number of telegraphists short of the authorised staff allowance between 11 a.m. and noon on the dates mentioned ranged from 32 to 64, and averages 41 out of a total of 2,000. A large number of telegraphists were withdrawn from the Central Office for special duties at race meetings, etc., and the full number usually allowed between 11 a.m. and noon could not have been provided without bringing on at 11 o'clock telegraphists whose ordinary attendance did not commence until 3 p.m., and thus involving four hours' overtime in each case to meet the requirements of a single hour. Notwithstanding the shortness of staff, however, the whole of the telegraphists whose duty commenced at 7 a.m. were relieved for refreshment between 11 a.m. and noon, excepting on one day when a few telegraphists were detained until a few minutes after noon. The staff commencing duty at 8 a.m. were released between 12.15 and 12.50 p.m., with the exception that on one day a few telegraphists were detained until 1.15 p.m. The staff commencing duty at 9 a.m. were in every case released before 2 p.m.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether a number of telegraph learners attending the School of Telegraphy, Moorgate Street Buildings, have passed the usual course of instruction, and have been informed that no vacancies exist in the Central Telegraph Office; whether they receive no pay whilst at the school, but should receive 12s. per week on entering the Telegraph Office; and whether, as overtime is being performed at the Central Telegraph Office, the learners can be given appointments?

Eleven Central Telegraph Office learners arid twenty London Postal Service learners have passed the usual course of instruction at the School of Telegraphy, and have been waiting for vacancies. They receive no pay for their attendance at the school, but the Central Telegraph Office learners are employed part time at the Central Telegraph Office to reduce the payment for overtime, and for this they receive 6s. a week. Six of the eleven Central Telegraph Office learners will be appointed during the present week, when their wages will be 12s. a week, and the remaining five who only qualified in March last, will no doubt be shortly provided for.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the issue of converted batteries began early in March 1899; and what was the number of converted batteries in the hands of the troops on 21st April 1899?

The first converted gun-carriages were issued on 7th March 1899. The number of batteries equipped with these converted carriages on 21st April was 14. A regular issue is now proceeding according to a programme that has been laid down.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is true that in Ipswich and other localities, where previously there had been great opposition to vaccination, the cases of vaccination have notably increased since the passing of the Act of last year, and that many parents who had been persuaded to apply for certificates of exemption have not presented them to the vaccinating officer, but ha-re subsequently had their children vaccinated?

There is distinct evidence from reports that have been submitted to me that in a number of localities where previously there had been a great amount of default under the Vaccination Acts the number of vaccinations performed since the new Vaccination Act came into operation on January 1st last has been in excess of that for any corresponding period in recent years. The case of Ipswich, to which my honourable Friend refers, is one in point. There the average quarterly number of vaccinations performed by the Public Vaccinator during 1897 mid 1898 was only 33, whereas in the first quarter of the present year the number vaccinated was 198. It is also true that in certain cases parents, who on the passing of the Act of 1898 obtained certificates of exemption on the ground that they conscientiously believed that vaccination would be prejudicial to the health of their children, have, entirely of their own initiative, procured the vaccination of those children.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether any, and, if so, what sale of milk now takes place from the Camp Sewage Farm at Aldershot; whether a committee of independent medical men has inspected the farm and the dairy; and whether their Report will be communicated to the House.

Milk from the Camp Farm Dairy is supplied, if desired, to the canteens at Aldershot, and also to officers and married noncommissioned officers and men. The farm was inspected on Thursday last by Dr. Andrewes, who is sanitary officer and pathologist to the medical school of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, and who was selected for the duty at the recommendation of the medical officer of the Local Government Board. His Report has not yet been received, but it is understood that he has formed a very favourable opinion of the sanitary state of the dairy and farm. The Report will be laid upon the Table without unnecessary delay.

Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether Dr. Andrewes drank any of the milk himself?

I am not informed as to that, but I may say that Andrewes purchased some of the butter for consumption in his own family.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will state what has been the net deficiency on the working of the Indian railway system during the year just closed, and what is the estimated financial result of the operations of Indian railways for the current year; and, similarly, what is the profit, if any, under the head of irrigation during the year just closed, and what is the estimated profit from the same source for the current year, including the gain accruing to the land revenue from irrigated areas?

The estimates show, as regards railways, a reduction of the deficiency from Rs. 2,660,000 in 1896–97 and Rs. 1,432,600 in 1897–98, to Rs. 878,100 in 1898–99 and Rs. 880,600 in 1899–1900. The honourable Member is, of course, aware that the variations in the deficiency are mainly dependent on the rate of exchange at which the payments in England are made. In India the profit on the working of the railways was 5.20 per cent. in 1896, 5.08 per cent. in 1897 (when the famine and plague affected the returns), and 5.30 per cent. in 1898. In respect of irrigation, the estimates show a profit of Rs. 239,600 in 1898–99, and of Rs. 116,500 in 1899–1900.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury is he aware that the proof sheets of the Debates for the 20th April did not reach the Members who took part in them until the 29th April; whether he is aware that every Member of the Canadian Parliament receives in the morning with his Parliamentary Papers an official unrevised report of the proceedings of the previous day; and whether there is any reason why Members of the Imperial Parliament should not have the same privilege?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The delay was due to alterations having to be made in the contractor's machinery rooms as required by the local authority. Thu answer to the second paragraph is in the negative. It would not be possible under the existing contract to require proofs to be delivered as suggested in the Question, old the large additional expense would in any ease hardly be justified by any compensating advantage. The conditions of the Canadian Parliament vary considerably from those of the Imperial Parliament.

May I ask whether the honourable Gentleman is not aware that the practice referred to is adopted in the case of Private Bills?

Yes, Sir; but probably at very considerable expense.

May I, ask in what respects the conditions of the Canadian Parliament differ from those of our own?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he state what is the amount of the expenses incurred on account of the maintenance of the brothers Natu since their arrest; whether any portion of these expenses are charged to the Natu state; and, if so, under what provision of law such a charge is made?

According to the accounts as yet received, the payments made up to the 31st of July 1898 out of their estate for the maintenance of the two brothers amounted to Rs. 1,912 0 anna 4 pies. I have not received accounts of the total cost of their maintenance up to that date, nor of the expenditure from their estates after that date. The charge made against their estates under management was incurred under Section 2 Regulation XXV. of 1827, and in accordance with the advice of the legal officers of Bombay.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is his intention to appoint a Committee to deal with preservatives in food?

It is intended to appoint a. Committee to inquire into the use of preservatives in food, and the Committee is now in course of formation.

Will the right honourable Gentleman say whether the Committee will be a Departmental one or a Committee of the House of Commons?

Departmental.

Will the Committee report before the report stage of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill?

No, Sir; the inquiry must occupy some time.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will bring in a Bill to enable magistrates who have a conscientious objection to grant certificates of exemption from vaccination under section 2 of the Vaccination Act 1898 to decline to grant these certificates of conscientious objection?

No, Sir.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if a magistrate is not entitled to have a conscience as much as anybody else?

Order, order! I must say that it is extremely doubtful whether the Question on the Paper does not amount to a breach of the rules, but Questions which have merely a satirical object ought not to be put.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been called to the fact that, during the present small-pox epidemic in Hull, of 25 cases admited to the hospital (of whom three died) the cases were of unvaccinated patients; and if the proportion of unvaccinated persons was large in the Hull district?

According to the latest information I have received, it is not the fact that during the present small-pox epidemic in Hull all the cases admitted to the hospital—which were 26, and not 25—were unvaccinated. Nineteen had been vaccinated, and the medical officer of health reports these cases to be of a modified character, and that none had died. The remaining seven were unvaccinated of these, four had died. I have no means of estimating the proportion of unvaccinated persons of all ages in Hull, but during the last five years for which Returns have been received, some 20 per cent. of the children whose births were registered in the two unions in which Hull is comprised, and who survived when the Returns were made, were then unvaccinated.

May I ask, Sir, whether, in view of the fact that more than 200,000 certificates of exemption have been granted, it is not, a matter of surprise that there has not been an epidemic of small-pox?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the summaries of statictics relating to mines will be issued to Members; whether such summaries were, until recent years, issued at a much earlier period of the Session; and whether he is aware that they lose touch of their value by the delay in their publication?

The, statistics referred to are now available to, Members, having been delivered at the Vote Office yesterday. This is an earlier date than in any year since the returns, from quarries as well as from mines have been given. Moreover, the Home Office this year issued an advanced proof of the statistics, so far as they relate to, mines, which was in the hands of the honourable Member more than a month ago.

I beg to, ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, in respect to schemes sanctioned by him under the, Compensation Act, laid upon the Table of the House on March 1st, will be issued to Members?

It would not be possible to state precisely when their Report will appear, but it will probably be published at an earlier date than last year's Report.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Land Tax has been improperly collected in Staffordshire from many persons, chiefly small landowners, whose incomes entitle them to total exemption, and whether he will issue general instructions to collectors to forbid their claiming land tax from persons on whom no demand for income tax has been made, and who are therefore presumably entitled to relief?

Instructions have from the first been issued with a view to avoiding as far as possible unnecessary applications for the payment of land tax assessed upon properties the owners of which, having been allowed exemption or abatement of income tux, are known to be entitled to relief under the 12th section of the Finance Act, 1898. There are, no doubt, cases in which the information possessed by the surveyors of taxes is not sufficient to enable the charges to be remitted without application from the owners of the properties. In such cases it must be left to the persons who consider themselves to be entitled to relief to prefer their claims in the manner prescribed by the Act. I have no reason to suppose that the circumstances in Staffordshire differ from those in other parts of the country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the thwarted the proceedings under the Report of the Governor of Ceylon on Mr. C. J. E. Le Mesurier's indictment of the Governor and of other officials in Ceylon: whether these complaints were sent to the Colonial Secretary in January through the Governor himself; and whether it is imperative on the Governor, under the Government regulations, to report on such a complaint at the time of forwarding it to the Secretary of State; and whether the Inspector-General of Police in Ceylon has protested against the use of police to eject the occupants of lands claimed by the Crown; and whether the law officers of the Crown in Ceylon have advised against the action of the Governor in using force to occupy such lands, and advised him to proceed under the Common Law; and has the Government at last taken proceedings under the Common Law of the Island to assert the right of the Crown to use of these lands; and why the same procedure could not have been taken with all the other lands in dispute?

Yes. The petition in question, dated the 31st December, was forwarded with a dispatch dated 3rd April, which reached me 24th April. The acting Governor, who wrote the dispatch, explained the delay as follows:—

"It has not been possible to deal with this memorial as speedily as I should have desired, owing to the number of references which were necessitated to the several officers who are charged by Mr. Le Mesurier with grave dereliction of duty. They, in fact, include all those officers of Government whose duties necessitated their coining in contact officially with Mr. Le Mesurier, and his complaints range over a period of some 3½ years."

The Governor, who is in England, states that, as far as he is aware, the Inspector-General of Police did not and was most unlikely to make any such protest as the Question implies; the Attorney-General of Ceylon, under whose advice all proceedings under the Ordinance have been taken, has not advised as suggested in the honourable Member's Question, nor has he advised the Governor to proceed under the ordinary law, except in one or two cases where Mr. Le Mesurier is concerned. In these cases Mr. Le Mesurier by technical objections, thwarted the proceedings under the Waste Lands Ordinance, and, consequently, the Attorney-General saw no reason why he should continue to have the benefit of the cheap procedure provided by the Ordinance, especially as he would not have the same opportunities for obstruction under the ordinary law. To adopt the same procedure in all cases would be unfair to other claimants, who prefer the inexpensive and expeditious procedure under the Waste Lands Ordinance. That Ordinance is, generally, very popular, and many large proprietors are anxious to have settlements effected under it because, besides being cheap and expeditious, it provides for the amicable settlement of claims, and Government has, from the first, directed that all bona tide claims are to be treated in a generous spirit. Consequently, nearly all claims other than Mr. Le Mesurier's have been amicably disposed of under the Ordinance without the intervention of the ordinary courts, which are open to every claimant.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether along with the text of the Agreement with Russia the correspondence relating to the Niu-Chwang Extension Loan will also be laid upon the Table?

These papers are being prepared, and will be laid on the Table without any avoidable delay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to British interests in Bolivia, and the fact that Germany, France, Italy, and Spain are represented by Consuls in that country, the question of appointing an English. Consul will be considered?

Such British interests as exist in Bolivia have been during the recent disturbances placed under the protection of the United States Minister. Should the circumstances warrant it, the establishment of a permanent Consular officer will be considered?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the South African Republic is an independent State, save only the right of Great Britain to veto any treaty negotiated between the Republic and a Foreign Power, the Prime Minister will direct that diplomatic communications with President Kruger shall be carried on henceforth through the Foreign Office?

The answer to this Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that, during the present smallpox epidemic in null, out of 25 cases admitted to the hospital (of whom three died) all the cases were of unvaccinated patients; and if the proportion of unvaccinated persons is large in the Hull district, and to what extent the Conscience Clause in the Vaccination Act of last Session has been claimed in that locality?

According to the latest information which I have received, it is not the fact that during the present smallpox epidemic in Hull all the cases admitted to the hospital—which were 26 and not 25—were unvaccinated. Nineteen had been vaccinated, and the Medical Officer of Health reports these cases to be of a modified character, and that none had died. The remaining seven were unvaccinated; of these four have died. I have no means of estimating the proportion of unvaccinated persons of all ages in Hull, but during the last 5 years for which returns have been received some 20 per cent. of the children, whose births were registered in the two Unions in which Hull is comprised, and who survived when the returns were made, were then unvaccinated.

ventured to express the hope that the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see his way to accept the present Amendment. In reviewing the history of the system of election of local governing bodies, lie called attention to the fact that, whereas in London, under the provisions the Act of 1894, it, was open to every board of guardians to elect one-third of its members every year, or to have the election of the whole board every three years, all the boards of guardians in London had adopted the triennial method. He thought that fact should disabuse the mind of any Gentleman in the House who might think this was in any sense a Party question, because both Liberals and Conservatives were agreed as to the desirability of adopting this system of election. He appealed to Members on both sides of the House who were personally identified with the local government of London as to whether the multiplicity of elections in London was not a really serious evil. They had already three great triennial elections in Loodon—those were for the County Council, the Boards of Guardians, and the School Board. It would, however, be an advantage to have those elections in different years. In 1900 there would be the next. School Beard election; in 1901 the next election of the London county council; and if they could arrange that the second election for he new bodies came in 1902 they would have the great municipal elections of London placed in different years. He thought that would give rise to a greater amount of interest in local matters, and to the advantage of all concerned. The extension and multiplicity of elections was a serious item, but he did not advocate triennial elections merely from the point of view of cost. Everyone connected with local government in London was impressed with the disadvantage of too many elections The boards of guardians, which represented every shade of political opinion and voluntarily adopted triennial elections, were well satisfied with the results, and he trusted that that system would be adopted in the present Bill.

said he thought the arguments on both sides were very evenly balanced. He admitted, however, that there were strong arguments in favour of annual elections, but there was one that had net been mentioned. For instance, if in a par particular borough a policy was being pursued which was very much to the distaste of the majority of the electors, the composition of the council could, at the end of the year, be changed to such an extent as either to modify or reverse that policy. So little interest had been shown in the annual elections in London that this, in itself, was a strong argument for making the elections triennial. He ventured to suggest that the views of both sides of the question might be met if, at a later stage of the proceedings, the Government provided for triennial elections in London should two-thirds of the borough councils petition the Local Government, Board for them.

said the right honourable Gentleman in charge of the Bill must see that there was a very strong feeling on both sides of the House in favour of the Amendment. For his part, he did not attach too much importance to the fact that all the, guardians, or at any rate an enormous majority of them, had adopted the system of triennial election. He based his arguments in support of the Amendment on very different grounds. In the first place, the Lane of vestrydom in London had been the lack of popular interest in vestry elections. By the adoption of triennial elections that apathy would, to a very considerable extent, disappear. Triennial elections were a necessary concomitant of the adoption of the system of aldermen. Whatever strength the objection as to cost formerly had it had greater strength now, for double-membered constituencies were now being adopted, and the only way, in which annual elections in those constituencies could be worked would be by taking one-third of the districts each year.

said he desired, as one who had lived for the greater part of his life in London, to put before the Committee certain considerations. The object of the Bill, as he understood it, was to improve local administration in London, and, as everyone who had taken part in such administration must be aware, there never could be a permanent improvement until there was an elevation of the social and intellectual standard of those who had the public spirit to come forward and take office. He might be wrong, but he had always believed that one of the reasons why, as a rule, the administration of provisional municipalities was unquestionably superior to that of London was to be found in the fact that there were annual elections. Speaking generally, municipal administration in the provinces had attained a higher standard than that which prevailed in London, and the London County Council elections were held every three years. His experience of London was that for a considerable part of the first year after the elections members were occupied in fighting their battles over again, and as soon as they arrived within measureable distance of the next election a large pro-portion of the time of the representatives of the local bodies was taken up with electioneering matters. He thought the excellent administration which existed in provincial municipalities was due to the fact that members gave a very considerable proportion of their time to the work of improving local administration. He was afraid that if honourable Mem- bers adopted the Amendment gentlemen who could make plausible appeals to the electors, and whose special aptitude for electioneering was superior to their administrative capacity, would come into prominence, and these were not of a class that they desired to permanently dominate the new municipalities. He quite admitted that the question was a very difficult one, but he could not help thinking that the adoption, of the Amendment would largely vitiate the benefit expected from the Act.

said he would venture to add his appeal to the Government to adopt the principle of triennial elections. He did not quite agree, with his honourable Friend the Member for the Strand that the arguments on both sides of the House were very evenly balanced, because, to his mind, this question went to the very root of the Bill. As he understood it, the motive of the Bill was to create such public interest in local government as would lead to a restoration of the use of the franchise. The use of the franchise in these local elections had fallen away almost to nothing in many parts of London, and it had fallen away not only because of the want of dignity attaching to the local authority, but because these constant elections were never concentrated upon any comprehensive view or question. He could not himself see anything of importance in the argument which had been so freely used as to triennial elections introducing an element of politics in local government, because if politics were to be introduced in these, elections they would be introduced just as much in the annual as in the triennial elections. Politics were introduced by the Party organisations. The Party organisations always existed, and they were only too glad of the manual opportunity of exercising their efforts, and, so far as his acquaintance with London went, they certainly not retire from the exercise of those efforts on account of annual elections. But there was one argument which appeared to him to be of equal importance, and that was that by these annual elections they never obtained from the electorate a comprehensive view of the policy of the vestry. Elections were often in the nature of snatch divisions: they turned on some incident of the moment, and their frequency detracted from their interest.

said he thought honourable Members opposite attached too much importance to this issue. Considerable evidence was given on the point before toe Royal Commission, and witnesses, who came from all parts of the country, were very emphatic, each in supporting the system to which he was accustomed. There doubtless was a good deal to be said as to the difference between London and the country in this respect. The opinion had been expressed that they must have these elections every year in order to get rid of the apathy that prevailed. Great boroughs like Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham however, were all very much excited when the annual elections came round. The official representatives of these, great municipal boroughs gave evidence that the system of annual elections was very greatly approved of. But how were they going to get rid of the apathy of London? Surely if London were so easily moved it would be very much excited at the present moment. Here was a Bill before Parliament which dealt with the whole organisation of local government of London, and yet he feared very little opinion had been expressed with regard to it. The hope of getting persons engaged in London government whom they had not had before, charged with superior duties, was, he believed, more likely to be realised by getting one-third of the members elected every year than by electing all the members every third year. The opinion given before the Royal Commission by the representatives of provincial municipalities was that they bad tried the existing system and approved of its simplicity and continuity, and that the administrative excellence of their corporations depended on its permanence. He suggested, therefore, that the system proposed in the Bill should in the first place be tried.

thought that if they adopted the plan of having the elections every three years a larger number of voters would go to the poll, but it did not necessarily follow that they would get better representatives sent to the vestry. The excitement, if any, would be of a comparatively factitious nature, and would largely depend upon the interest that the local political organisations took in the matter. Nor did he think that the electors who would be induced by what he might call political pressure to go to the poll would necessarily select the men best fitted for the local governing body. It was quite true that. London was different from provincial boroughs. There was no doubt that that was to be accounted for by the fact that in London there could not be the same kind of political life that they bad in a provincial borough. The inhabitant of Hampstead, Chelsea, Fulham, or Kensington, went to his work in the morning in some spot far away from the place where he lived, and returned in the evening tired with his day's work, and disinclined to interest himself in local matters. In Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and provincial towns, with a smaller population, the man who took part in local affairs was known by name to a very large section of the community. The local journal, which was the newspaper to which the great bulk of the inhabitants went for information and guidance, took note of the doings of the local councillors, and if they appeared at public meetings or took part in any way in the public life of the town, they were more or less conspicuous in the eyes of their fellow-townsmen. But the local affairs of Kensington or of Chelsea did not receive recognition in the papers which the inhabitants of Kensington or Chelsea were in the habit of reading. There might or might not be local papers, but those local papers were only read by a very small section of the community, and the consequence was that when the inhabitants of those places were asked to vote for persons to represent their interests upon the local councils they did not., as a rule, know anything about them. Therefore, when the names and qualifications of 18, 20, or 24 candidates came before them they would have to seek for guidance somewhere else. The guidance, of course, would be furnished in the shape of a list of candidates by the local political organisation, with a request to the elector to vote for the whole of the names. He thought everyone would agree that that was not a satisfactory way of arriving at the best possible men for the conduct of local administrative work, and for that reason he, for one, thought it would he rather a disaster if they were to depart from a well-established practice in favour of a proposal which had been commended to the Government by the opposite side.

said the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin was quite wrong when he remarked that London was indifferent to the Measure now before the House. He would not have said that if he had been a London Member, because for the last month scarcely a post had passed which had not brought a considerable body of evidence showing the interest taken by local bodies and individuals in the question. Some change was wanted for the better; the state of affairs could not possibly be worse than it was now. In his own constituency he had known vestry elections in which only 5 per cent. of the electors had gone to the poll, and it was ridiculous to contend that this proportion represented the opinion of the constituency. A Bill was required to emphasise this new departure. He was confident that the result of making the elections triennial would be to give an additional importance to the contest, while inducing a larger number of voters to go to the poll.

In expressing my own views upon this subject the difficulty in which I find myself placed is not diminished by the fact that, on the whole, I feel myself driven to a conclusion, not indeed very strongly felt, but clearly felt, which does not appear to be in harmony with a great number of honourable Members on both sides of the House who represent London constituencies. I cannot help thinking that something which fell from the last speaker indicates the temper of mind in which this question is very naturally viewed. It. has a great deal of justification, though I am not sure that it is of a character to enable the House to arrive at a right, sober, and judicious decision. My honourable Friend said that the present system of election to vestries is intolerable, that only 5 per cent. of the electors go to the poll, and that a change is called for. Now, Sir, I sympathise with my honourable Friend. The whole object of this Bill, no doubt, is to make a change to substitute for the vestries, which have not risen to the full height of their opportunities in local government; bodies of higher dignity and authority. The mere fact that a particular form of election is associated with the bodies whom my honourable Friend wishes to dispossess is not, I think, by itself a very strong reason for making the particular change the honourable Member desires, and the arguments on the other side have not, perhaps, received clue consideration from my honourable Friends. I admit that the effect of this Amendment, or of any Amendment, must inevitably leave a large element of conjecture. The House is dealing with a state of new things about which we may have guesses and prophecies, but with regard to which we have no absolute settled experience. No analogies drawn front the extra-metropolitan area, from the principal boroughs in the country, from the vestries, are conclusive as to the result we may anticipate from this or any other suggested change. But I think that my honourable Friends, in their laudable desire to produce this kind of interest in the elections which they think will bring forward the right kind of candidates and get them elected to serve in the new boroughs, have rather mistaken the character of the disease from which the community suffers and the nature of the remedy appropriate to it. Suppose that the result of adopting the Amendment will be that every three years there will be an agitation extending over the whole of London and affecting every borough in the vast area—an agitation similar in kind and carried out by the same bodies, supported by the same papers, by the same organisations as in the case of the London County Council elections—will they or will they not by that augmentation of interest get a better class of men on the vestry? I confess that I greatly doubt this. The only produce of that species of agitation on which my honourable Friends rely for augmenting the interest of local elections is not that the local man of position, anxious to do the practical work of a borough, will come forward. It is rather the gentleman, probably with great facility of speech, a man very desirous to serve his Party organisation, be that Party organisation Conservative or Radical, in some sphere or other in the House if possible, in the County Council if not, and next in the borough council. Perhaps it may be said that we all belong to that class of man—that we are all more or less professional politicians in that sense. But I ask my honourable Friends whether the particular class of man they wish to introduce in these borough councils is not of a somewhat different complexion; whether the particular class of men they wish to elect is not a man who has a solid desire to do the routine work connected with his district, and who looks upon local agitation and electoral contests as so much time abstracted from the proper work of his life. That is the kind of man I wish to get. I am far indeed from being convinced that the species of interest which will no doubt arise in having the elections triennial will produce that kind of candidate. We do not want all the agitation connected with a general election to accompany not merely the County Council and School Board elections, but the elections for the new bodies. It should not be extended, at any rate, without further thought, consideration, and experience of these new municipal boroughs. The right honourable Member for Bodmin referred to the experience of the great municipalities of the country. It is true that London differs from Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, or Leeds; but, though there are differences, human nature, after all, is the same in each; and I think it has to be shown that the differences are such that we ought to adopt a policy in London which not one of the great cities I have mentioned would tolerate. My right honourable Friend has quoted the evidence given before the Royal Commission. I have taken some trouble to make inquiries of those intimately concerned with electoral matters in these boroughs, and I cannot exaggerate the strength of their opinion or the fervour with which they hold the faith that it is on the annual elections, and the annual elections alone, that the sound working of their system depends. It seems to me against that universal and strong experience that we have no counter experience to advance. My honourable Friends rely upon the experience of the vestries. But we all admit that the vestries have been a failure, and that it is not from the vestries that we can draw any true analogy as regards the future London local life. And, if that is so, should we not be in the highest degree rash in introducing into Bill which has for its primary object to assimilate these new boroughs with the great extra-metropolitan boroughs—a principle of election which was against the unanimous experience and the strong conviction of every man who worked in the municipalities of these boroughs? Judging from the speeches we have heard, I gather that a, majority of the London representatives do not hold the view which I have perhaps very imperfectly endeavoured to express. I may remind theta, that not merely the vestries alluded to by my honourable Friend, but the Committee of the great Westminster conference, representing two or three millions of the people, and I do not know what rateable value, unanimously passed a resolution in favour of annual as against triennial elections. I think that fact should be borne in mind. But I should rely, in the advice I am now offering the House, more on the caution which ought to regulate our proceedings in this House, than on any cut-and-dried theory in which people profess to have absolute confidence. I have no such confidence. All I can say is let us in the inception of these new bodies learn from the experience of similar bodies outside London. If we find, after a. fair trial, that the system is a failure, and that there is some mysterious and unexplained reason why Loudon cannot, without the stimulus of a general election, get up and keep up any interest in local affairs, then we may have, though with_ sorrow and regret., to abandon the system of an annual election and substitute for it that of triennial election. Such a, Bill would be very easily passed through the House; there would be no difficulty in making that change; but all I plead for is that before the change is made we should have adequate experience of the system which has succeeded so well elsewhere. I should feel, so far as I am concerned, I should be taking a very heavy responsibility if under my advice the House deliberately rejected the universal experience of every borough outside London, and I ask it to take advantage of the lesson which these boroughs have given us, and accept the proposal in the Bill.

said he had listened with regret to the conclusion to which the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House had come, be cause he thought that, in consequence of the way in which the Debate had been conducted, and the large number of Members who had spoken in favour of the Amendment, the right honourable Gentleman would have considered it more favourably. The right honourable Gentleman had said that he would not alter the original proposal in the Bill for annual elections, because it had been a success in the case of the great municipalities outside London. He did not know why that argument should have such great influence with the right honourable Gentleman, because, after all, they had had no experience outside London of the triennial system, and it did not follow that they would not have been still more successful if they had tried the triennial system. If the annual system bad been so successful in regard to municipalities outside London, why was it that the Government only a few years ago had adopted in regard to the London County Council and the county councils throughout the country the triennial system? He would say, as a London Member, and one interested much in London questions, that the triennial -system had been extraordinarily successful in the case of the London County Council, and he believed that every member of that body, whether he was Moderate or Progressive, would admit that the triennial system had worked successfully, that it had created a widespread interest in the work of that assembly, and, in his opinion, had produced a better class of candidates than would have stood in the case of annual elections. He believed that they would get a better class of candidates for the new boroughs if the elections were tri- ennial; at any rate, it ought to be left to the option of the electors to have the election annually or triennially. It had been said they suffered from two things in London; one was the apathy of the electors, and the other was the number of elections. Now, the London County Council represented to them the municipalities of other towns, and it was admitted that the interest in the London County Council was very great. Now, if the Amendment was not accepted they would be practically adding to the already large number of elections in London. The honourable Member for Nottingham had made a point about the large number of councillors who had in be elected for each ward in the new boroughs, but in some parts of London, for the- School Board, for instance, they had to elect eight or nine members, and that had not created any substantial difficulty. After the very strong expression of opinion that had been given on the other side of the House, after the way in which this had been treated as a non-Party question, but especially titer the hesitating speech of the Leader of the House, he thought he would be justified in pressing the Amendment to a Division.

said that, although the other London Members might hardly regard him as a London Member for the purposes of this Bill, yet at the same time he had had a good deal of experience of London Government. For the first few years he had had a seat in the House he sat for a borough in the country, and his experience in every way was similar to that of the honourable Member for Bodmin, and he was very glad to hear that his honourable Friend intended to support the Bill as it stood. For his own part, he believed that, good as the work of the London County Council had been in many respects, it would have been better if they had had annual elections instead of triennial elections. There was no doubt that if the elections came triennially there would be more excitement, but he was not sure that excitement was the atmosphere in which they would secure the best candidates. A question had been asked, Why it was that there were not more elections in the City? Well, if elections turned on political considerations, everybody was likely to vote, but if they turned on purely municipal grounds, there was naturally not quite so much interest in the matter. Elections in the City were not fought so much on political grounds, and that was the reason why there were not many contests in the City. It seemed to him that the system the Government proposed would promote elections on purely municipal considerations.

had hoped that annual elections would be done away with, if only for the reason that the people were apathetic when elections were so frequent. At least, it was only political electors who then voted. If the object was to further efficiency of administration and continuity of policy, that would be much better obtained by the election of the whole body for three years rather than by partial elections every year, while considerable expense would be saved. He had consulted many vestry clerks about the matter, but although they were in favour of annual elections because they made a certain amount of profit out of them, they admitted that it would be better for London if the election were triennial. He had examined very carefully different communications from vestries all over London, and he was glad to see that a great majority were in favour of triennial elections. He did not like to hear so much about the vestries having been a failure. They had conducted the business of London for something like 44 years, and the manner in which they had done so ought not to be disparaged. They deserved, on the contrary, praise for what they had done.

said that this was so important a point in regard to municipal administration that he ventured to say a few words on it. On the abstract question there was room for almost any amount of diversity of opinion. They were, therefore, thrown back on the cardinal fact of experience in municipal affairs. Well, that ex- perience extended over half a century in. all the large, as well as the smaller, centres of population. He was bound to say that the Association of Municipal Corporations, although they showed diversity of opinion in regard to Poor Law administration—had always, whenever this question was approached, been. unanimous in favour of the annual system of retirement by thirds. The object of the Bill, as he understood, was to conform the local government of London to what had proved so successful in the provinces, and if the provincial experience had been so marked in regard to the great success of annual elections, they should pause before they risked an experiment in London, so different. His belief was that the annual system would eradicate politics from municipal elections—a very important consideration indeed. He would use an argument which would appeal to honourable Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, namely, that the annual system was, essentially a democratic system. It secured that the representation should be a reflex of the opinion of the electorate of the moment. Under the triennial system, there might be a change in public opinion about many questions, yet the council might continue to enforce a policy which was far from a reflex of the opinion outside. With the annual system they had a more frequent change of the representative body, and, therefore, it became inure directly representative of the opinion of the constituencies. It appealed more directly to the electors, while at the same time it preserved the continuity of general policy and administration.

urgently appealed to the Leader of the House to allow the Division to be taken on independent lines. He did so more confidently because, during the Debate, opinion had been expressed altogether apart from Party considerations and associations. As a very old London citizen, he could, from experience, entirely agree with the statement that the local spirit had by no means the vitality here as elsewhere, and that was the reason why experience drawn from elsewhere entirely failed in regard to London. It had been said that annual elections were more democratic than triennial. But he would point to the United States, where the elections were almost. universally annual, and every sound political thinker there condemned the system as a besetting evil. Under that system, the elections had passed from the hands of the people into the hands of a certain number of political wire pullers who arranged, convened, and influenced the political conventions. The result was obvious. The ordinary citizen got sick of the whole business, and neglected to go to the poll, and the elections fell into the hands of the political and municipal bosses—one of the most odious creations of modern democracy. He had been brought to the very opposite conclusions from the same facts as his right honourable Friend the Member for Bodmin. That right honourable Gentleman said that if they had triennial elections, there would be excitement, agitation, large meetings, and much public speaking. But when brought to the concrete, that meant that the Citizens of London, who had hitherto taken no interest in local affairs, would begin to take an interest in them. The honourable Member had stated that only 5 per cent. of the voters in those constituencies took part. If they had annual elections they would continue to have this normal number. It was only by giving to these elections the seriousness which they would get by triennial elections that they could hope to get the people to take an interest in local affairs, and if they did not do this the Bill would he a failure.

said that he hoped to get an alteration made in clause 21, so that they might have these bodies elected at the first election for three years certain. No doubt they wanted better men, and this would guarantee that they would get good men, and afterwards one-third could go out annually. This was a new experiment, but London was different to other places, and it was too soon to say that one-third should go off in the first year. In several large clubs with which he was connected, they found it better to elect the committee for three years, and then allow a third of it to retire every year. Some time would elapse before these new bodies could be properly organised, and the mem- bers of the first body elected should have time to mature their thoughts. He should vote for the Bill as it was now drawn, hoping that clause 21 might be amended in the way he had suggested.

said the First Lord of the Treasury had admitted the value of Home Rule in his speech, and if there must be a Division it should be between the London Members. There seemed to be a disposition to treat the London Members as if they did not know their own business. They had had speeches from Members for all sorts of distant places, but so far as the opinion of the London Members was concerned, they were pretty unanimous in favour of triennial elections. He denied that the Westminster conference ever took place, although certain gentlemen were called together to discuss a scheme proposed by Mr. Wheeler. The local authorities were so heartbroken about this Westminster conference that they resolved to hold a genuine conference, to which the whole of the 42 governing bodies in the metropolis were invited. There were 26 local bodies who sent delegates, and they spent the whole afternoon in discussing these problems.

Who was the chairman?

said the vicar of Islington was the chairman of the conference, at which a resolution in favour of triennial elections was carried by 29 votes to 19. There was really no provision in the Bill for an annual election, because there was all the difference in the world between an election and a third of an election. There was as much difference between an election and a. third of an election as there was between a horse and a third of a horse. A horse was a most useful animal, but a third of a horse was only fit for cat's meat. These bodies, like the House of Commons, wanted a clean sweep of the old gang occasionally. Another important objection was in regard to the expense, for there was nothing which the people groaned under so much as the rates. Annual elections were one of the most expensive luxuries of the whole of their municipal system, for they would cost practically as much as triennial elections. The Member for Birmingham made a singular mistake when he said that annual elections would only be one-third of the cost, for they would be just as expensive as the election of the whole body. The right honourable Gentleman had carried the analogy of the country municipalities too far, for there was no central body in Manchester and Liverpool like there was in London, where they had the London County Council, which was elected triennially. He hoped they would continue to have triennial elections in London, instead of these worrying, costly annual elections. The conditions were not the same as in the country, and he hoped the Committee would treat the question from the standpoint of Home Rule and let the London Members decide the question.

thought that the First Lord of the Treasury had altogether ignored the experience of London upon this subject. The voice of London was one chorus of condemnation of the present system. The people were worried and harassed, and put to expense, and they would have no more of it, and they would rather let their institutions go to the dogs than turn out at so many elections. What was one man's meat was another man's poison, and in provincial towns they had not so many difficulties to contend with as they had in London. From inquiries he had made he did not think that opinion in favour of annual elections was at all universal in the provincial municipalities. If this Measure was to reform local life, at all events they should reform that which would lead up to it. He did not think it was respectful to London, with 5,000,000 of inhabitants, that their experience should be ignored altogether, and he very much regretted the decision which the Government had come to. He hoped the Government would allow them to vote freely upon this question, for he felt sure that a large majority of the House were in favour of triennial elections. The machinery required to work an annual election would cost just as much as a triennial election of the whole body. The apathy complained of was due to the disgust of the electors on account of the unnecessary worry they were subjected to, and that apathy would continue unless the cause of it was removed.

believed that it was vital to the success of this Bill that they should have annual elections. He felt sure that if the municipal corporations of England were asked their opinion, they would not assent to triennial elections. He could not agree with the honourable Member for Islington that these would be only partial elections, for they could not adopt a better method of educating the people year by year than by getting them to register their votes annually. Some important municipalities had been spoiled by being converted into mere political point of Home Rule and let the London institutions, and the best corporations Members decide the question were those who endeavoured to elect die best men, regardless of what their political views might be. If they only had an election every three years they were much noire likely to have politics dragged in. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would approve of the position taken up by the First Lord of the Treasury.

thought it was advisable that the Government should consider whether it was not possible to allow the new bodies themselves to decide the question. If a majority of the municipalities of the country asked to have their method of election changed, would any Government drum up the county Members in order to keep things as they were? If power was given to the London County Council and to each vestry to choose between the two alternatives, surely they could grant the same privilege to these new bodies. If annual elections did not suit Walworth or Camberwell, why should they try to force upon those places what they did not desire to have?

said he had had considerable experience of these local elections, and one of their greatest difficulties was the getting of suitable candidates and inducing the electors to go to the poll. He did not wish to say anything discourteous to the vestries, but when a comparison was drawn between them and the municipalities throughout the country he wished to point out that there could be no analogy whatever. In London they did not get people to take any interest in local affairs until the London County Council was formed, for up to that time the vestries were in the hands chiefly of local builders. They were going to enlarge the areas of elections, and they hoped by doing that to get a better class of men to come forward. In the poorer districts, where the men were not known to each other, there would still be a difficulty in getting good men. It had been said that officials generally were in favour of annual elections, but that was only human nature, for they were always in favour of extra expenditure and greater importance being attached to their office. The tendency would be if they adopted annual elections to put greater power into the hands of the officials, and it would allow jerrymandering, and cliques or gangs to get into these new bodies, such as they had in the vestries of old. Surely this was a matter in which the wishes of the people of London should be consulted, and they should not seek to multiply these local elections.

I hope the Committee will not unduly prolong a Debate on which I think all that is to be said has been raid, and very ably said, by Gentlemen on both sides. I recognise that the general tendency of London feeling is against the proposal of this Bill as it stands. I have had Home Rule attributed to me by Gentlemen opposite, and I entirely agree that if London spoke with the experience of the new boroughs it would be impossible for the Government to resist their united voice, and no Government would attempt it. The advice I have given I have based on the fact that London has really not got that experience of the system which is proposed, but the country has, and if we take this experience and balance it against the non-experience of London the verdict must be in the direction of the proposal in the Bill as it stands. The answer to that, made by my honourable Friend and by other honourable Members on the other side of the House, is that London has had experience in vestry elections, but I do not think that the vestries are at all parallel to the new borough councils. I do not wish to labour that point, but I desire to throw out the possibility of some course which may be accepted, if not perfectly satisfactory, as an arrangement which may reconcile both sides of the House. I have indicated that if London had the experience of the new boroughs and were to decide upon triennial elections I should not resist their view. I suggest that we should put something in this. Bill which will enable the various parts of London to have a trial of this annual system, and give to these new boroughs the power of changing that system if they think it requires changing after they have had some experience of it. There is a very close analogy to this course in the Act of 1894. In that year I believe the Government brought in their Bill in the shape in which I have brought in mine, and I believe they were, subjected to something like the ordeal that I have been subjected to in defending this proposal, and they introduced the compromise, which I would now suggest to the House. If my proposal meets with general approval the result of that course would be that some boroughs might adopt the annual system of election and some the triennial system, and I see no reason why that line should not be adopted. There might be some advantage in it; but at all events each locality, judging by its own needs and its own wishes, would settle by a two-thirds majority, subject to the veto, which I presume would rarely be exercised, of the Local Government Board, what form of election it would have. If that compromise commends itself, on the whole, to both sides of the House, I, at all events, am perfectly ready to give up my view on the subject.

said he understood the right honourable Gentleman to offer that the new municipalities were to be elected for one year, and subsequent to that they would have the option of choosing whether their elections should be every year or triennially. If the right honourable Gentleman had put it in the opposite way, that the first election should be for three years, and allow them to decide whether subsequent elections should be annually or not, he would have withdrawn his Amendment, but upon the question of principle he must take a Division.

said he was very much in favour of triennial elections, and should have supported the Amendment, but in view of what had been said lie should now accept the compromise suggested by his right honourable Friend. He understood that the borough councils would be elected together in the first instance, and that an opportunity would be given them of deciding, what should be their procedure hereafter. He thanked the right honourable Gentleman for the handsome way in which he had met their wishes.

asked the right honourable Gentleman for some further explanation with regard to the arrangement which had been suggested. Was it the intention that the first election should be for three years, and then the council should determine before the end of the first year whether they should proceed 1,, retire by thirds or not?

said that so long as the question of the duration of these new bodies was left to the boroughs themselves to decide he most strongly appealed to his honourable Friends to accept the compromise. He hoped simple majority of the council would be allowed to decide the point.

two-thirds majority.

thought a two-thirds majority was contrary to precedent, and he asked the right honourable Gentleman to consent to leave the matter to he decided by a simple majority.

There is a precedent for what I suggest in the last sub-section of clause 23 of the Act of 1891. Of course, the exact phrasing of the sub-section will not do for this Act, but it shows the nature the compromise which I suggest.

reminded the right honourable Gentleman that since the Act of 1894 was passed there had been a general concurrence throughout the country, and certainly in London, that vestries and guardians should conic under the triennial election system, and all come out at once. The whole of the boards of guardians which came under that sub-section had expressed themselves in favour of the triennial system, which applied to the London County Council and the London School Board. Since the Parish Councils Act was put in force there Lad been general dissatisfaction with the annual appeal to the electorate. He thought honourable Members should differentiate between municipal life in the provinces and in the metropolis. In the provinces there were not the same number of elections as there were in London, which were due to the special circumstances of London's complex life and as both sides of the County Council had agreed that three years should be the period for the district councils, he appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury net to still further confuse London life t having annual elections. (Cries of "Agreed, agreed") If they were agreed he was not, and he was going to exercise his right. He thought the triennial system was by far the most preferable method and best adapted to London life. The suggestion made by the First Lord of the Treasury, although conciliatory, was very confusing, and would lead to the new councils having a "send off" under conditions which would not make for the dignity which this Bill claimed to give them.

pointed out that the guardians had decided in favour of triennial elections, and he believed they had better men on the guardians than, as a rule, on the vestries.

said that what they wanted to discover was whether annual elections prevented the best men coming forward. The Act of 1891 gave the power of deciding the period to the councils, but in this case he thought the best thing to do would be to give the power to the Local Government Board.

said that after what had been said he would not put the House to the trouble of a Division, and he begged leave to withdraw his Amendment.

said that he realised the fact that the number of councillors was smaller than the number on the vestries because a ward of 30 would be reduced to a ward of 15, but that appeared to him to be much too great.

I entirely agree with the principle which animates my honourable Friend in putting this Amendment on the Paper. I do not think he need have any fear that the representatives of the wards will be excessive, and I think the Privy Council can be trusted to deal with this subject.

thought the proposal might very well remain as it was.

said that after the explanation of the First Lord of the Treasury he would withdraw his Amendment.

explained that the object of his Amendment was to prevent the application of a pernicious principle in relation to London as a whole. This Bill carved out London into a certain number of areas, and left the poorer parts to be dealt with by the Commissioners. He thought this might lead to the jerrymandering of the wards, and this might occur if they decided to divide the whole of the South East of London into two immense municipalities. In that part of London along the river side great warehouses and wharves existed, and that portion would be divided into rich and poor wards. The riverside portion had a high rateable value and a comparatively small population, and it might occur if the district was divided into five wards that two of those wards might contain quite two-thirds of the inhabitants of the whole borough. That might give a preponderating power to those who, so far as lighting and sanitation were concerned, had less interest in the borough than the more populous winds. Those who had warehouses which were highly rated did not dwell within the boundaries of these municipalities, while those people who dwelt in the poorer wards were the mechanics and workers of various kinds who lived iii that particular locality week in and week out; their wives and families were permanently, domiciled there, and they had no chance of escape from that area. Therefore, it was only right and proper that population, and population alone, should be the basis in the granting of councillors for these new areas, because the efficient management of the parish in lighting and sanitation was of the utmost importance to the poorer class of people who spent their lives in those thickly- populated localities.

I hope that the honourable Member will not press the Amendment. The several Acts dealing with wards, clown to the most recent of them, have laid down the principle of defining them according to the double qualification of population and rateable value.

said that Parliament had, since 1894, abolished rating as a basis for the local franchise in London.

expressed the hope that the influence of rateable value would not be diminished.

urged that good local administration was most needed in those areas where there were the largest and poorest populations. In Islington there were four wards each returning nine members, but having populations varying from 17,000 to 33,000.

pointed out that there was no machinery by which there could be any re-arrangement of 'Wards in the event of au increase of population. The power which was at present vested in the London County Council had been exercised to the general satisfaction of the people. On the Second Reading of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury said he was not in the least jealous of the County Council. Some of them were rather sceptical as to that statement, but the right honourable Gentleman had now an opportunity of showing beyond all doubt that he had confidence in the County Council and in its ability to carry out the work for which it existed.

said he agreed that arrangements should be made in such cases as the increase of population, but the Bill provided for that by machinery which already existed for municipal boroughs throughout the country.

said that metropolitan opinion was unanimous that the County Council had exercised this duty exceedingly well, and he saw no reason why it should be deprived of this power. They wanted this power to be exercised promptly by a body that knew the locality.

said he could state from personal experience that in two cases with which he was acquainted—namely, Cambridge and Wigan—wards had been altered under the Municipal Corporations Act in a very satisfactory way.

said the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act were applicable to borough councils who applied on very special and rare occasions for alterations of their wards, but he questioned whether the same elaborate machinery was appropriate to the present case. They were dealing with matters which related not to one great municipal corporation, but to a number of municipal corporations. The London County Council was familiar with the work, and surely the simple, tried, and inexpensive way was the most satisfactory.

said it seemed to him that the honourable Member who had just spoken had forgotten that in every case the alteration of the wards must be approved by the Secretary of State, and therefore it was simpler for the borough council to go direct to the Secretary of State than for the new London boroughs to go first of all to the London County Council and then to the Secretary of State. For, after all, it was with the Secretary of State that the ultimate decision rested.

said lie thought his honourable and gallant Friend who had just spoken did not quite understand the point at issue. As far as regarded the merits of the question, he could not conceive what defence could be made by the Party opposite for adopting in this matter a different practice from that which had been adopted by the county councils all through the country. While the power was in the hands of local bodies local satisfaction was almost invariably given.

said he thought the honourable and gallant Member for St. Pancras had somewhat misunderstood the present position of the matter. He understood him to say that there was as much difficulty and as much machinery in connection with the exercise of the power under the London County Council as there would be under the Government. At present the thing was done by the County Council in the ordinary course without any trouble; there was no necessity for any inquiry, no complaints had been made, and it cost the ratepayers nothing. But the proposal now adopted by the Government would necessitate great cost, great delay, and great difficulty in carrying out. In the present case they were only dealing with very small matters which necessitated the alteration of the existing boundaries, and machinery which might be very valuable and possibly necessary for the original creation of wards was cumbersome and costly as applied to such matters as the sub-division of wards. To his mind it was simply a question as to which was the most simple and economical process. The existing system had worked with great satisfaction; there seemed to be no necessity under the circumstances to alter it, and he appealed to the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House to unfold to the Committee the object and the advantage of making the alteration. He could only think that it was made with the view of taking from the Council a power it at the present moment exercised to the general satisfaction. There could be no other reason, because he did not think the right honourable Gentleman could deny that under the proposed arrangement there must be greater cost, greater delay, and greater chance of injustice than there could be under the present arrangement.

said the honourable and gallant Member was in error in supposing that the procedure was easy in the case of the Municipal Corporations Act. He had had a good deal to do with the private Bills of the House, and he believed he was right in saying that that method of changing the wards of the municipalities of the country was a dead letter.

believed that whatever complaints might be made against the Metropolitan Board of Works, complaint was never made of their action in this respect. He sympathised to a certain extent with the idea that the Government had in their minds. It was, he supposed, to give more independence to the new London boroughs, and to assimilate them to the county boroughs. But he thought that in this respect it had been shown that the system in the county boroughs did not work nearly so well as the present system in London.

said these adjustments of boundaries were being made by the county councils almost every day with the greatest possible ease, with the greatest possible facility, and with the greatest satisfaction to everybody concerned.

said the analogy of the provincial councils was not only the proper, but the most recent one. He could hardly think that the Government would adhere to the decision announced by the Solicitor-General. The Government were going out of their way to import into the Bill machinery which was not working well and was so unsatisfactory that even the municipalities had ceased to use it.

expressed the hope that his right honourable Friend would accept the Amendment. The present procedure was working well in London, and, on the principle of leaving well alone, the concession asked for might, he thought, well be made.

also appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment, and thus allow the London County Council to do what they had previously done with full satisfaction to the local authorities.

was bound to admit that the London County Council understood this question. They had performed the duties of dividing wards in a satisfactory manner, and he thought that they could be trusted to perform the duty as well as any other body that could be created.

I am quite sure that the London County Council have exercised the functions of altering boundaries where such alteration was required with probity, discretion and great local knowledge. But that does not, I confess, affect the view I take of the proposal of the honourable Gentleman opposite. My view of the relation between the County Council and these boroughs is that in all central matters the County Council should be supreme, but in all matters that are not central the whole business of local government in the new boroughs should be carried on without the reality or the appearance of interference from or subordination to the County Council. That being the principle embodied in the Bill, it appears to me that if we give to external authorities the right to deal with boundaries, that right should not go to the County Council—not because they have misused their powers, or were at all likely to do so, but because it was not in conformity with the general principles upon which the Bill has been constructed, and the general lines on which its foundations have been laid. What is that complaint of the honouralde and gallant Friend behind me, which is an alternative to the one which is now before the Committee? The only objection I have heard is that an appeal to the Privy Council is a very costly and a very long proceeding. It has been alleged by an honourable Gentleman on the other side of the House that an appeal to the Privy Council remains for years unanswered, and also that it is costly.

I did not say that the appeal was a long time before the Privy Council, but that the local authorities, knowing that the appeal was costly, took a long time before they made the appeal.

Perhaps I misunderstood the honourable Gentleman. The delay that occurs is not due to any laches on the part of the Privy Council, but to the fact that the only machinery that the Privy Council can put in operation is one essentially costly and over-elaborate. Well, I have made inquiries on the matter and cannot affect to give an independent judgment upon it; but there is another provision in the Bill which I think may afford a fair solution of the question, and that is the analogy of the action of the county councils when they want to alter their own boundaries. Certainly, so far as their own internal divisions are concerned, they have the power to appeal to the Local Government Board, and that Board sends down an inspector. I have made inquiry, and the Under Secretary of the Local Government Board informs me that it is an extremely cheap and also a rapid process. I think, therefore, that when we come to a subsequent part of the Bill where my honourable Friend's Amendment would appropriately come in, it may be found desirable to substitute the more modern machinery of the Local Government Act of 1888 for what the honourable Gentleman regards as the cumbrous machinery of the Municipal Corporations Act. That I will carefully consider. I hope the House will understand that no reflection was intended to be cast on that august body—the London County Council—but it appears to me that this is one of those matters which does not directly concern it. I am not willing that these new municipalities should be in any sense subordinate to the London County Council, though, of course, in all matters of central concern the London County Council must be, and ought to be, supreme.

The right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House has started a new proposal.

What we are now discussing is the Amendment of the honourable Gentleman opposite and a possible alternative.

said it was the alternative to the London County Council proposal that they were now to debate, and therefore they must take it into consideration. The proposal to make use of section 27 of the Act of 1888 was different from going to the Privy Council, which was an expensive piece of machinery compared with what was proposed in the Amendment. It was per- fectly plain that the real reason for introducing this piece of machinery was the desire of the Government to keep the London County Council out of any department connected with these new boroughs. He quite understood the reason, but he did not think it was satisfactory, and would in many cases lead to expense and delay.

moved as an Amendment—

"Clause 2, page 2, line 3, leave out from 'that,' to end of sub-section, and insert 'the number of aldermen shall be one-sixth of the number of councillors, and the total number of aldermen and councillors for each borough shall not exceed 70.'"

He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment, the more so because when the question of aldermen was being discussed, the First Lord of the Treasury pledged himself that the number of aldermen on each council would be considered hereafter. There was a precedent for the course which he suggested. The proportion of aldermen to councillors in the London County Council at the present time was as nearly as possible one to six, and when the suggestion was made in 1888 it was accepted without demur by the Minister in charge of the Bill. There was one argument in favour of his Amendment which he thought of importance Where a number of local authorities were amalgamated, many vestrymen would of necessity lose their seats, and it was possible that some of the localities might feel themselves to be under-represented, and if they had rather more members to elect under the Bill, that feeling might be to a certain extent minimised. He did not think himself that the number of aldermen should be insignificant, but at the same time they ought not to be preponderatingly numerous. And he really believed that the proportion of one-sixth was more suitable than that proposed in the At any rate it would meet; an argument used by an honourable Member on the other side of the House that the honour of alderman was being made so common that it would be no dignity at all. If the Government accepted his Amendment the proportion of aldermen to councillors in London would be very considerably smaller than in the boroughs in the country.

was perfectly certain that the acceptance by the Government of the Amendment moved by his honourable Friend would give universal satisfaction throughout London to all those over the country who were interested in the local government of London. It should be remembered that the system to be set up by the Bill was a new system, and that the new borough councils, composed partly of aldermen and partly of councillors, would be substituted for bodies which at present time were purely popularly elected. Some regard should also be given to the very large number of aldermen that would be created by the proposal of the Bill for the whole area of London. He was certain that the system would cause less friction if the proportion of aldermen was rather less than in the Bill as it stood.

said that the argument brought forward in favour of the Amendment was certainly very strong, and on behalf of the Government he was prepared to receive it.

felt quite certain that a sufficient number of proper persons could be found inside the areas to undertake the duties and accept the position of aldermen. The duties on these bodies would be, for a matter of fact, purely local, and not, as in the case of the London County Council, the administration of the affairs of the whole metropolitan area, and it seemed to him best to leave the administration of their local affairs to residents in the boroughs, without the interference of those not directly interested in the locality.

was glad to see that the Government had gone as far as they had in reducing the number of aldermen. Most people would have preferred that there should have been no aldermen at all. He regretted that there should be any, but he should sup- port the Amendment, as he thought it was perfectly useless to take any other course; and after all, half a loaf was better than no bread.

said he could not allow the opportunity to go by without protesting against one-sixth of the councils being aldermen. Aldermen were not required at all, and if he could reduce the number be should do so. In his opinion aldermen were not only useless, but positively dangerous, and the position ought to be abolished. He believed that they had been incorporated into the Bill with the object of suppressing progressive activity in local government. He predicted that in a very few years the borough councils would be disgusted with their aldermen, and he thought and hoped that they would do away with them as speedily as possible.

was called upon to propose an Amendment, but did not answer.

said, before passing from the Amendment of Captain Jessel, he wished to know what course it was proposed to take with regard to it. Did the Government propose to adopt it?

said that it would probably be more convenient to bring it forward at a future period in the shape of a separate clause.

said perhaps the Solicitor-General would be able to explain this clause, which he had found it very difficult to follow. Sub-section 3 declared that the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1888, with respect to the chairman of the county council and the county aldermen shall apply to the mayor and aldermen of a metropolitan borough. He complained that the whole form of the clause was obscure and unintelligible, and if it could be set out exactly and in detail it would be to great advantage. The hon. Member then moved to insert at the beginning of the Sub-section the words, "Except as otherwise provided provided for in this Act."

said the Government could not accept the Amendment, and he could not himself see that there was any obscurity in the clause as it stood. It referred to other Acts which were all pretty well understood, and he saw no reason in this case to depart from the legislation which had been adopted in those Acts.

desired to associate himself with the view which had been put forward as to the clause being absolutely unintelligible as it stood, and said he was supported by a great weight of opinion. High legal authorities differed very greatly as to what the words really meant.

thought that in sub-clause 3 legislation, by reference had been carried to an extreme which had never been previously reached. One of the objects of the Bill was, he believed, to give greater dignity to these local bodies by giving them a mayor, but sub-clause 3, as it stood, enacted that the mayor should be called chairman. That was one of the extraordinary results which followed from the form which the Government had adopted.

said he hoped that the Government would make some attempt to meet the objections to this clause, which nobody understood. He appealed to the Solicitor-General to postpone the discussion upon it in order that another Amendment might be brought in. So far as he could see, the Solicitor-General was not so strong, in his objection to the clause being amended as he was to the form of the Amendment proposed. He thought if the discussion was postponed the clause might be satisfactorily dealt with later.

deprecated the practice of legislating by reference which had crept into Parliament during late years Although it was apparent that the Solicitor-General had given this clause great attention, it appeared to him that if the clause passed into law in its present form it would be very difficult for anybody elected to these district councils to know what his duties were. The clause referred to other Acts of Parliament, and the difficulty of the Committee was that they did not know under which of those Acts the clause was to come. He thought that the matter should be made quite clear and pe put into such a position that people would know how they stood.

was not quite certain that the words might not have to be added before the Committee reached the pith of sub-clause. One of the difficulties that he felt was whether the Local Government Act of 1888, which was referred to, applied to London or not.

accepted the Amendment, stating that when he first read the clause he read it to mean that the Local Government Act, so far as it applied to London, applied to this case; but upon further consideration and looking further back, he found it specially stated that aldermen should be one-sixth, and he gathered from that that was not so. He agreed that the words "except as otherwise provided in this Act" should be placed in the beginning of the clause.

proposed to add to sub-section 3—

"Provided that any 12 councillors may unite their votes in favour of one person as alderman, and such person shall thereupon be declared elected, and the councillors voting for him shall have no further vote in the election of aldermen."

He understood that under the Bill as it now stood the aldermen would be elected for six years, and that one-half of them would retire every third year. If in a council there were 60 elected members there would be 10 aldermen, five of whom would retire every third year. The object he had in proposing the Amendment was to secure that the 60 councillors, when electing the five aldermen, should be able to elect them in proportion to their own opinions, so that the five aldermen should represent as far as possible the whole of the councillors. The past history of the municipal corporations of the country showed that up to the present time the majority of the council had complete control in the matter. The majority of the London County Council had not, in the election of aldermen, used their power auto- cratically, but had recognised the right of the minority to representation on the aldermanic bench. He, however, wanted to secure that that representation should be obtained, not by grace or favour, which might raise awkward questions from time to time, but by means of simple automatic machinery perfectly intelligible to the electors. In the case of a council having 60 councillors his proposal would mean that any 12 councillors might agree in choosing A. B. to be their alderman. Thereupon A. B. would be elected alderman and the 12 councillors would retire from the process of election for that term. A second 12 might, if they liked, choose C. D. to be their alderman, and a third 12 and a fourth 12 might choose E. F. and G. H. respectively. If the whole 60 were divided in that way, by spontaneous action, into groups a perfect representation would be obtained. If only three groups of 12 each chose aldermen in the way he suggested, the remaining 24 councillors would fill up the two vacancies in the ordinary fashion—namely, by a mere majority. From the point of view of machinery there could be no objection to his proposal, while from that of principle it was impossible to conceive a better means of obtaining a just and fair representation. He submitted that there would be no difficulty as to the machinery necessary to carry out his Amendment. The experience of the London County Council showed that the power now vested in a majority to secure for themselves the privilege of filling up the vacant places of aldermen should be exercised so as to secure for the different sections of the council their proportional representation of aldermen. He could supplement what he had said by a subsequent explanation if necessary, but his proposal was so simple that he failed to see how anyone could misunderstand it.

said that the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Bodmin had moved this Amendment for what he called proportionate representation, but everything he had said would apply to every municipality throughout the Kingdom as well as the boroughs under this Bill.

The principle might go that far, but the proposal only applies to this Bill.

And to county councils and all other bodies in connection with which similar elections might take place. He would much rather see a great principle of this kind dealt with in a Measure which would be applicable to all those bodies than by an Amendment which applied only to a particular case. He knew the great interest which the right honourable Gentleman took in proportionate representation, and he thoroughly agreed that there was no difficulty in the proposals that he made; but he did not like to adopt a principle in one particular instance which would go a great deal further, and ought, if it was adopted, to be made applicable in ail cases. With regard to the practical side, whatever might be said against it, he thought that in practice the present system had not worked out so badly, and on these grounds he hoped the Committee would not accept the Amendment.

said he was in favour of proportionate representation, and although he would have preferred to see his own Amendment upon this question, still he should support so far could that of the right honourable Member for Bodmin. He thought the system proposed in the Amendment was more equitable and just than the present. His own Amendment was somewhat similar to the one before the Committee, but his idea was that the two-thirds of the aldermen should be elected by the majority of the council and one-third by the minority, and that would not give the majority the same disproportionate advantage as at present. For a matter of fact it was about the proportion the majority on the London County Council granted in the aldermanic representation on that body on a recent occasion, but that was granted simply as a favour. His Amendment would give it to the minority as a, right, and save all the trouble of conferences, interviews and other arrangements betwixt, the leaders of the respective parties. Saying now, for instance, to take a concrete case, a given borough had to elect 50 councillors, of whom 26 were chosen from one Party and 24 from the other. Would it be equitable to give the power to the 26 councillors to select eight aldermen to increase their majority to 34. By the system he proposed the majority would elect five aldermen, and the minority three, and the respective parties would thus stand numerically at 31 and 27. In the event of the Committee not accepting the Amendment before them, he hoped they would accept some system by which all the aldermen should not be elected by a bare majority, and the minority have no power of electing any, except as a favour.

thought that the present method might be greatly improved upon in this respect, and he saw no hope of the Bill being effective if some difference in the election of aldermen was not made. In the county where he came from these matters were run upon political lines, and if the Liberals were in the majority in the council they always elected aldermen of their own political persuasion, and the Conservatives did the same. That was a system which ought to be avoided if possible. Under the circumstances, it the matter was pressed to a Division, he should vote with the Mover of the Amendment.

said that, in his opinion, if the Committee adopted some such suggestion as that which was now before it it would do away with a great many of the objections which many people had to aldermen. It was very damaging to the business of a council to have elected aldermen of all one colour, and he thought the minority ought to have a voice in their election. He should certainly support the Amendment.

said he thought that first of all 12 aldermen should be elected, but that in the subsequent elections six would be the number, assuming the total council to be 72.

said that chance vacancies very often occurred in county councils. Sometimes two vacancies occurred at the same time, and what he wanted to know was on what principle were those to be filled? He expressed the hope that the Government would resist the proposal.

said that if the principle of the proposal were accepted it would be easy to amend the drafting. He was disappointed by the attitude which the Solicitor-General had assumed. The argument that if a particular proposition were accepted it would have to be extended to a hundred other cases was the old sluggish, lazy plea of the man looking for the first easy reason to say no. But the Solicitor-General had brought forward no other argument against this proposal. From the Solicitor-General he would pass to the Leader of the House—from the workman to the "boss." It was well known that the Leader of the House was not only capable of understanding the proposition, but had actually voted for it on more than one occasion. Would the right honourable Gentleman condescend to say something more than the Solicitor-General had been able to say as a reason for refusing this proposal? It was a practical proposal; there was no question as to the ease with which it would work or as to its utility. It might be that in some cases county council majorities had thought it prudent to let in some of their opponents; but that was the exception, and not the rule. Our ideas were so dimmed and clouded in Party controversy that the best men were always on our own side. The great Darwin once said to him:—"What astonishes me very much about your action in the House of Commons is that you do not regard politics as an experimental science, that you do not try here and there how an experiment will work and, if it succeeds, extend it." Here, then, was a case in which to try an experiment. It might be said that he was a fanatic, a faddist, who could not look at both sides of a question. But here was a practical, simple suggestion, dealing with a practical, simple matter. Everyone knew the jealousies which arose over the election of aldermen to the county councils and how difficult it was to get the best men. Without considerations of political bias his plan would give an opportunity for the introduction of the best men for the work, and he hoped his right honourable Friend would give some reason that would at least not excite wonder for not adopting in relation to this matter a principle he had himself supported both by vote and voice.

said he was opposed to the institution of aldermen. Their presence on the London County Council had been the cause of the introduction of political feeling, and he therefore approved of the suggestion of the right honourable Gentleman.

My right honourable Friend has made a suggestion which has the advantage over others he has offered that no Member can pretend that he does not understand it. It has no doubt been the objection urged against representation proposals from Hare's downwards by those who wished to be considered practical that they could not understand them, but in many cases they did not and do not wish to understand them, being accustomed to the simple plan of working matters in the House and in subordinate assemblies by a simple majority. My right honourable Friend escapes the objection that his proposal could not be understood, but not on that account is it likely to meet with favour from the general body of the house. I have myself voted with my right honourable Friend on a previous occasion; and, more than that I, myself, brought in a Local Government Bill for Ireland in which minority representation was included. My own belief still is that unless the scheme of last year had been devised we should either have to leave Irish local government alone altogether or we should be driven to some form of minority representation. I am convinced that nothing but the clearest consciousness that a great injustice would be done to the minority by not giving them representation would ever induce this House or the majority of Englishmen to accept what an honourable Member just now called a fancy franchise. In the matter of aldermen, there was not that overmastering sense of probable injustice that would drive the Committee into accepting the Amendment proposed by my right honourable Friend. It is perfectly true that some minorities have artificially kept themselves in a majority in borough and county councils by the misuse and abuse of the system of aldermen, but practically no one can contend that injustice to individuals happened there from or that any great difference occurred in the government of the com- munity interested. If we had to deal with the case of Ireland, the matter would be different; it would have been necessary either to leave the whole subject alone or to try some form of minority representation. That does not arise in this Bill, and I do not believe my right honourable Friend has the least chance of inducing the House of Commons to accept his Amendment. He suggested that unless the House chooses occasionally to try an experiment it would never be able to judge of the value of any innovation, but as the father of these nascent boroughs I do not wish any rash experiments tried upon them. I should like something more mature to be taken as the subject of the proposed experiment, and if it were found to work well, I should be very glad to see it extended to the boroughs which we are occupied in creating. There is one other point which I would bring before my right honourable Friend. He has assumed that the fight will be between two parties—let us call them, for the sake of argument, Progressive and Moderate—and that whichever Party is in the majority will elect a solid mass of its own way of thinking. That has been true in certain cases of the past, and may be true in certain cases in the future. But the 10 councillors in his plan may not at all be within the organised fold of either of the two Parties and they might bring in a very inexpedient addition from outside. If the Amendment lower down on the Paper, proposing a selection of aldermen from London citizens, is carried, it is evident that these 10 councillors might bring in from outside somebody very indifferent as far as carrying out the work of the borough was concerned. That may not be a practical danger, but I rather think it is. It would not be a practical danger in a House like this, but I do not think that an ordinary borough council would be improved by the sort of addition I have in my mind. We avoid that if we make a Party responsible for the election; they might have a kind of concrete responsibility extending far beyond 10 councillors, and therefore, although they may be tempted to elect persons of their own way of thinking, they have a kind of corporate responsibility which would prevent them from committing extravagances or excesses in the election of aldermen. I would suggest to my right honourable Friend that nothing will be gained by pressing his Amendment to a Division, because I am convinced the Committee would never consent to accept the novel principle he proposes unless there were a probability of extravagance or injustice, and that they are prepared to maintain the system which prevails in our boroughs all over the country.

said he had much sympathy with what his right honourable Friend had said, but he did not think he would examine his arguments. It really depended upon his right honourable Friend whether they would initiate a change which would be of great public advantage. He would not press his Amendment to a Division, because it would be only a caricature, and he was quite content if the Committee allowed him to withdraw it.

moved—

"In clause 2, page 2, line 11, after 'borough insert' provided that no person shall be eligible as an alderman who is not a councillor at the time of his election as alderman.'"

He said he regretted that aldermen could be selected from any district in London. He had the greatest objection to it because, as the new boroughs were local bodies, they ought to have people from the locality on them who would take an interest in the affairs of the district, and that would be militated against if they could select aldermen from any other district in London. It was not unreasonable if they were to have aldermen that they should be members of the council, who had perhaps for many years given their services to the community, and who, not caring to face their constituents again, should have an opportunity of being elected to the honourable position of alderman, in which they would remain undisturbed for six years. The opposite result had been followed on many councils, the dominant majority endeavouring to make their domination as permanent as possible by selecting all the aldermen of their own Party. He heard with satisfaction the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury, that that practice had almost entirely died out. His honourable Friend the Member for Barnsley told him that for 20 years it was the practice in Manchester not to select aldermen otherwise than from the councillors. If his Amendment were adopted they would have to a certain extent a check upon the selection of aldermen, because if the selection were limited to members of the council no alderman could be elected who had not submitted himself to the votes of the constituency. In that way, public opinion would be brought to bear on the selection of aldermen.

I hope the honourable Member will not press to a Division his Amendment, which would greatly militate against the efficiency of the councils. Naturally, councillors who have the choice in their own hands would elect men in their own body in preference to outsiders, but there may be cases where it would be a great convenience and advantage to the council to be able to go outside. I do not see why they should be prevented from exercising that discretion, and it is a discretion which is not likely to be abused.

said it had been freely stated that the present arrangements for the election of aldermen had been utilised to elect defeated candidates, and a very unpleasant feeling had frequently arisen on that ground. There was a tendency in a Party which met together to elect one of their own number who had just failed at the poll, and there was a great deal of grumbling in such cases because the verdict of the constituency had been reversed. He thought that was a very sound reason for accepting the Amendment. He put it to honourable Members opposite whether he had not touched a difficulty which was common to both sides. That difficulty would, however, be avoided by accepting the Amendment of his honourable Friend, who he hoped would carry it to a Division.

said he would be pleased if the leader of the House would accept the Amendment; it was not moved in the interests of any Party, but in the interests of the purity of elections. There were many cases in which a man was induced to engage in a hopeless contest, encouraged by the promise that it he failed he would be elected an, alderman. That ought not to be approved of. He thought that that dodge for defeating the wishes of the ratepayers should not be encouraged. That was the common sense view of the question, and he hoped his honourable Friend would go to a Division.

said that, speaking simply for himself, he was sorry he had to disagree with the views of his honourable Friend in the matter. The point was, would they get better aldermen if they confined their selection to members of the Council? If they were to have aldermen at all, he should like to see the area of selection as large as possible. His honourable Friend had stated that aldermen would be elected from candidates defeated at the poll; he himself showed the fallacy connected with that view. The man who stood for a constituency in which he had very little chance of being successful, rendered a service, not only to his Party but also to the ratepayers, by giving them an opportunity of recording their opinion.

said that the Government would stultify themselves if they did not accept the Amendment. If the new boroughs were to be separate municipalities as the Bill proposed, on what principle could they go outside in order to find aldermen? Moreover, he thought they would be doing an injustice to those within the municipality, as there would be a great temptation to go outside in order to obtain aldermen. Many of them were not in favour of having aldermen at all, but if there were to be aldermen it was only right and fair they should be chosen within the district.

The next Amendment standing in the name of the honourable Member for St. Pancras ought to be raised as a new clause. It is a, separate matter, not dealing with mayors or aldermen.

moved—

"In clause 2, page 2, line 11, to leave out 'borough' to the end of line 13."

It was an. Amendment consequential to one which had been already accepted.

said he could not understand how it could be consequential.

moved—

"In clause 2, page 2, line 13, at end insert, 'Provided also that nothing in this Act shall entitle a borough council to pay to the mayor any remuneration."

He said he wished to know the opinion of the Government on the matter. At the first glance the Amendment might appear to be anti-democratic, but there was a great deal to be said for it. He believed that the Chairman of the London School Board received a salary for the first two years, but certainly not for the past 20 years. The Chairman of the County Council, although entitled to it, had never taken a salary. Seeing that they were appointing mayors all over London a great deal of expense would be incurred if they were all paid salaries.

said that as the Bill stood it would be in the power of a council to pay its mayors such remuneration as it thought fit, and the Government saw no reason for departing from the ordinary law on the subject. The matter was entirely in the hands of the representatives of the constituencies.

said he was in favour of the clause as it stood, and hoped his honourable Friend would withdraw the Amendment.

said he had placed the Amendment upon the Paper in order to elicit the opinion of the Government on the subject, and he now asked leave to withdraw it.