I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is his intention to ask Parliament this or next Session to amend the Act limiting the enrolling of seamen for the Royal Naval Reserve to 30,000 men, for the purpose of increasing the number of first and second class seamen, and also of stokers and firemen; can he state the approximate number of permanent officers, engineers, and men that will be needed to complete the manning of the whole of the ships now in commission, as well as those that will be ready for the pennant at the close of the current financial year; and whether, in conjunction with the Lords of the Admiralty, he has formed any approximate estimate of the number of men of all ranks that will be needed for reserve purposes in the event of war; if so, will he give the numbers.

The hon. Member has seen my proposals for this year, to which I have nothing to add, and he must allow me to put off until next year my statement as regards future Estimates. In reply to the second question, it is im- possible to state in advance what the composition of the fleet in commission will be at the close of the current financial year. My answer to the third question is that the number of men of all ranks needed for reserve purposes in the event of war will, of course, depend on the nature of the war, and I am not prepared to make a statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain why Customs watchers who act as lockers at bonded warehouses, a duty done by the established out-door officers, are compelled to do nine hours a day all the year round, while the established officers only do eight hours a day in summer and seven hours in winter; whether, seeing that the salaries of out-door officers are £100 per annum, while the wages of watchers are 21s. a week, he will explain the method adopted in calculating the daily hours of duty of Customs watchers, which is now said to be only seven hours a day; and whether he will state the number of hours worked per day (based on a similar calculation) by the established out-door officers; whether, out of a total of 343 watchers now employed in the Customs Department of the Port of London, only forty were previous to 1896 liable to work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.; whether their wages were the same as now, 21s. a week, while the remainder were paid 19s. a week for an eight hours' day in summer and seven hours in winter, the overtime payment being 8d. per hour; whether the former were paid overtime before and after 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. each day, and the latter before and after 8 a.m. in summer and 9 a.m. in winter and 4 p.m. each day, regardless of the number of hours worked during the week; and whether overtime was only paid previous to 1896 after seventy-two hours' duty each week.

Watchers who act as lockers at bonded warehouses are not compelled to serve nine hours a day all the year round. Their hours vary from seven to nine, including meal time, according to the season of the year and the business of the particular warehouse. Very few outdoor officers are now serving as lockers or in any other capacity, and they are an expiring class. The salaries of outdoor officers are not £100. Second class outdoor officers receive £55 rising by £3 to £80, and first-class outdoor officers receive £85 rising by £3 to £100. £100 is therefore the maximum and not the normal salary of the class. The daily hours of duty of Customs watchers are not said to be only seven. I informed the hon. Member on 18th of April that "the minimum average number of hours a day, based on a recent week's work, was seven"—that is, that (with one slight exception) no individual watcher averaged less than seven hours' attendance per day during that week. The actual ordinary attendance (excluding overtime) of the established outdoor officers during the same week averaged 7⅓ hours per day. The facts stated in the third paragraph are correct. In the fourth paragraph the hon. Member presumably refers to the 40 men specified in paragraph 3. If so, overtime was paid after 12 hours' attendance on any one day (which is not the same as paying it after 72 hours' attendance in any one week).

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, what is the correct maximum salary for the clerks' class at 54s. per week offices, the officers of winch class are employed entirely upon supervising and technical duties in the Postal Service.

The maximum salary for clerks at all provincial offices—irrespective of the wages of the rank and file—is determined by the number of established officers, and has no necessary relation to the maximum wages of the rank and file. At the few offices where the rank and file have a maximum of 54s. a week the maximum salary of the clerks at present ranges from £160 to £175 a year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain why the Return relating to the American Mail Service, ordered 27th February, has not yet been issued.

The preparation of this Return involved some correspondence with the United States Post Office and a considerable amount of clerical labour, so that there has been no undue delay in compiling it. It was presented on the 4th ult., ordered to be printed on the 5th, and will be in the hands of Members one day this week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has completed the arrangements in regard to the vouching of the grant for clerical assistance to the various county court officers in Ireland; and, if the arrangements are completed, would he lay upon the Table copies of the various circulars issued in connection therewith, and at the same time furnish a Return showing the amount now being paid out of the grant to the various officers, together with the amounts paid to them as on the 1st day of April, 1897.

Yes Sir; the arrangements are completed, and I will furnish a return of the allowances payable on 1st April, 1897, and now; and also a memorandum of the arrangements adopted for vouching the expenditure of the county court officers in Ireland, within the limit of the fixed allowances.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are in the service of the Board of National Education in Ireland numerous second-class teachers who only receive third-class salaries; can he explain upon what principle this system is sanctioned by the Board of National Education; and will he undertake to communicate with the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland with a view to seeing that teachers are paid the full salaries attaching to their classification.

At the request of my right hon. friend I will answer this question. There are many teachers ranking in second class who receive but third class salary under the Board's rules, namely, principal teachers the average attendance at whose schools is less than 30 pupils, and assistant teachers who are entitled only to third class salary as such. After five years' service, however, the assistant teachers receive under the Education Act of 1892 a bonus which nearly equalises their emoluments with the salary of second class. Those arrangements are based on the principle of fixing remuneration in proportion to the duties and responsibilities of the recipient. The Commissioners do not recognise the claim that teachers should under all circumstances be paid the full salaries attaching to their classification.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the same system obtains in this country?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there have been complaints from the officials and members of the new county and district councils and also from the public as to the difficulty in procuring copies of the rules and regulations issued by the Privy Council and Local Government Board from time to time for the transaction of their business; and whether he will direct that copies of the Orders in Council and Local Government Board Orders will be put on sale to the public at the same time that they are put in force under the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.

The Orders in Council referred to have all been issued as Parliamentary papers, and copies can be procured through any bookseller. No complaints have been received as to the alleged difficulty in obtaining copies of these Orders in Council. Copies of the Orders issued by the Local Government Board are sent to every local body affected by the Orders, and to any member of the general public bonâ fide concerned who makes an application for a copy. It is proposed ultimately to print both the Orders in Council and Local Government Board Orders of a permanent character in one volume for presentation to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Mayo County Council, passed unanimously at their meeting 20th May, in which they state that, in order to prevent the periodical recurrence of famine, and to render unnecessary the annual migration of large numbers of the adult male and female population of county Mayo, and thereby save them from the risk of a disaster such as befel the people of Achill a few years ago, in which a large body of them were drowned, it is necessary that compulsory powers be given to the County Council to acquire for purposes of migration and enlargement of holdings such lands as are available for such purposes in county Mayo; and whether, in view of such a resolution, passed unanimously by such a representative body as the County Council of Mayo, he will without delay introduce legislation to meet the views of that body.

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will publish the appendices and papers referred to in the Annual Report for 1897–98 on British New Guinea (C. 9046 26) recently issued, especially those relating to scientific subjects, referred to on pp. 75–77 of the Report, and designated by Sir W. MacGregor as of considerable interest and of much importance; and whether he will encourage the preparation of such Reports in future by affording facilities for their publication for the benefit of scientific research.

The papers referred to are all published in Queensland, and copies are regularly furnished by my department to the various learned societies to whom they are likely to be of interest. It is the usual practice to publish any reports of general interest or utility not already published elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will be good enough to in- form the House whether the Anglo-American Commission is to re-assemble; if so, when; can he state the nature and extent of the differences alleged to exist between the American and Canadian members of the Commission; and whether the whole or any portion of the points at issue are to be referred to arbitration.

In reply to the first two questions I have nothing to add to the answers given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Before the Commission adjourned proposals and counter proposals were made by the British and United States Commissioners for referring the question of the Alaska boundary to arbitration, but they had been unable to agree as to the arbitral tribunal and the terms of reference. Negotiations on this question are still proceeding between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the conferences in reference to the future of the Imperial Institute are now concluded; and, if so, whether there is any objection to stating the general results or recommendations that have been arrived at.

Satisfactory progress has been made with the negotiations, and a definite proposal is now before the Senate of the University and the Council of the Institute. If, as is hoped, the replies of the two bodies are favourable, the result will be communicated to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now state when the contemplated fruit steamers may be expected to commence running between the West India Islands and this country; and when the return re Local Colonial Duties on Rum will be laid upon the Table.

(1) I am not yet able to fix a date for the commencement of this service. (2) Some of the Colonies have not yet furnished the information required for completing the Return. When they have done so the Return will be laid without delay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to the fact that Netheravon House, Wilts., which has been recently purchased by the Government for War Office purposes, is still untenanted, whether, in view of the disastrous results to the parish which will arise from the principal mansion not being inhabited, the Secretary of State for War will take immediate action to procure its early occupation.

Every effort has been and will be made by the War Department to obtain a tenant for Netheravon House.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in the Return No. 150, of 1899, which was ordered by the House in February last and distributed in May, of the gross and net rentals of property at Salisbury Plain purchased by the War Department, the column headed "present rental" gives in all cases the actual rental paid to the proprietor of the land at the time of purchase, or whether in any cases the amount of rental in that column represents a nominal rental which in practice was reduced by an allowance of, in some cases, as much as 20 per cent. reduction on the nominal rent.

The Return contains the rentals paid under the various agreements, but what reduction has been customary from those rentals I am not able to say without further reference. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question down again.

I will do so.

Have any tenants failed to pay the reduced rent to the War Office?

Some of them claim to receive from the War Office a reduction similar to that which they formerly received.

Was that taken into account in the price?

No, I think not.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Barracks and Military Works Loan Bill will be introduced.

I hope to bring in a Bill at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether medals and clasps for service in the last Punjaub War and the Tirah Campaign, 1897–8, have been issued to officers and men of the Bengal Staff Corps entitled thereto; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, anti when the distribution will take place.

The medals and clasps granted for the operations on the Punjaub frontier in 1897–98 have been in course of distribution since last summer. Any delay which may have occurred is due to the medal rolls not having been promptly submitted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give the correct figures showing the quantity and value of exports of British confectionery, arid of re-exports of foreign and colonial confectionery of all kinds to India?

I have communicated with the Customs on this subject, but I am informed that it would not be possible to compile from the records available iii that Department a trustworthy return of the nature desired.

I beg to move the following new clause:—

The proviso at the end of section four of The Finance Act, 1894, shall be repealed, and the following proviso in-inserted in lien thereof:—

Provided that any property so passing in which the deceased never had an interest, or which under a disposition not made by the deceased passes immediately on the death of the deceased to some person other than a person taking an interest in property passing at the death of the deceased of which the deceased was competent to dispose, shall not be aggregated with any other property but shall be an estate by itself, and the estate duty shall be levied at the proper graduated rate on the principal value thereof; but if any benefit under a disposition not made by the deceased is reserved or given to a person taking an interest in property passing at the death of the deceased of which the deceased was competent to dispose, such benefit shall be aggregated with property of the deceased for the purpose of determining the rate of estate duty."

This new clause which I propose to add to the Bill seeks to remedy an injustice which, I contend, is contained in Clause 4 of the Finance Act of 1894. It is practically the same as an Amendment which I moved last year, but in it I have endeavoured to meet the criticisms by which I was upon that occasion met, and I hope I have succeeded in doing so. If the House will permit me, I will endeavour to show, as briefly and clearly as possible, what is the injustice of which we complain, and what is the remedy which I seek to apply. It is true that Clause 4 of the Finance Act of 1894 gives exemption in certain cases where property passes on a man's death from its being aggregated with free property in his own possession, but in the proviso which I seek to repeal there is an exception to that exemption in respect of lineal ancestor, lineal descendant, husband, or wife. That sounds rather paradoxical, perhaps, but let us look at it in this way. Take the case of a man who dies, having settled property in which he has merely a life interest. He also has free property of his own—that is, property which he is free to dispose of, say, for instance, to the extent of £100,000. The settled property passes to his eldest son on his death, but as the law stands at present the whole of the property, settled or free, is aggregated. Thus the younger children who succeed to but a small portion of the personal estate, it may be, have to pay the whole rate of duty as upon the settled estate and upon the free property aggregated together. That constitutes, to my mind, a hardship—at least, it is regarded as a hardship by those upon whom the burden has fallen. I do not expect to get very much sympathy in the matter, particularly from hon. Members opposite, for I knew that their view of the matter is that if a man succeeds to anything at all it is fair that he should pay a heavy rate of ditty upon it. But that is not my only point. Take the case of the same man; he also has £100,000, and suppose that he has no sons at all, and that the property passes either to his collaterals or to strangers, under the law as it now stands it is not aggregated at all. That is illogical unfair, and perfectly unsound, and is absolutely opposed to every principled of the succession and legacy duties ever since those duties have been invented, inasmuch as the strangers and the collaterals in succeeding to the same property are paying a less tax than the Meal descendants. Now I am not aware whether the draftsman of this clause knew what would be the effect of the words he used; but of one thing I am quite certain, and that is that the author of the Bill himself, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, did not dream what the effect would be, for when last year I brought up the subject he said that the exemption for which Section 4 provided was only intended to operate in eases where there was no connection between the deceased and the persons to whom the property passed. May I take the case again of the same man with £100,000. Supposing that he has no children, the estate will not be aggregated to pay the full rate of the high estate duty, and his brother who succeeds to the whole settled property and the free property will escape aggregation. That is the injustice of which I complain. I hope that this new, clause, which stands in my name, will be accepted, because it will remove that injustice, and the younger children and the wife will derive the benefit from the property which the deceased has power to dispose of and which he naturally wishes to give to them. Their property will escape aggregation with the larger settled property which goes to the older son. As there must always be a quid pro quo in these matters, I am prepared to present to the Chancellor of Exchequer brothers and collaterals. Under my clause the brothers and the collaterals or the strangers who obtain, both settled property and free property—there having been no children—will be aggregated, and only the wife or the younger children will escape. Of course, I know that several criticisms have been levelled against the clause as it stands. Certain Members opposite say that the Finance Act of 1891 should not be touched at all. My answer to that is that whatever they may feel in regard to the Act, I am certain that they do not care to see an injustice done, and that if once an injustice is proved they will seek to remedy it. I think I have proved my case that there is an injustice, and I ask their sympathy and assistance in getting this injustice removed. There arises the question of the loss to the Revenue Which this exemption would cause. I have examined the matter most closely, and I cannot see that any great loss would fall on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The bulk of the property which a man leaves must be either settled property or free property. Suppose man left a million of free property to his children, all that would be aggregated and pay the full rate. In the same way if he left settled property the eldest son would not escape aggregation; the only loss would be in the case of the younger children and the wife, who would succeed to some small portion of the man's free property. Supposing that a millionaire leaves £100,000 of his property free, dividing it amongst his four younger sons, or £25,000 to each, it would be aggregated and pay the 8 per cent. duty. But under my clause they would only pay 1½ per cent. If six millionaires died in the year the loss would only be £21,000, while from the settled property the revenue would receive £480,000. That seems a very small loss to remedy a great injustice. I also ask a little assistance from hon. Members on this side of the House. I beg them to remember that when this Act was introduced Members on this side of the House fought it most desperately, and it was talked about on every platform at the last General Election. And I appeal also to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that some of my logic has penetrated his armour, and that he will be able to agree to my request. I do not profess to have a legal mind, and it is quite possible that the wording of the clause may not be quite satisfactory, but I trust that he will admit the principle of the clause. I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. A Clause (Amendment of s. 4 of The Finance Act, 1894, restricting the exemptions thereby given to non-lineals front the principle of aggregation, and extending certain exemptions to persons taking benefits under separate disposition)—(Lord Alwyne Compton)—brought up, and read the first time:—

One of the main principles of the Act of 1894 was that all property passing on the death of a deceased person should be aggregated for the purposes of estate duty. It was found impossible in practice by the Government which passed that Act to carry out that principle completely, because it was felt that where property passing on the death of a deceased person included property in which he had no interest, or which he was never at any time competent to dispose of, and which passed to complete strangers—that it would be unfair to aggregate that property with property passing to lineals for the purposes of determining estate duty, and thus entail a higher estate duty on wife, husband, son, or daughter as compared with that which they ought to pay on property passing to them. And therefore the Act as it stands departs from the great principle of the estate duty, which is to have no reference to the person to whom the property passes, but to have reference solely to the property which passes at death of the deceased; and it provides that where property in which the deceased never had any interest, or which he was not competent to dispose of, passes to non-lineals or to strangers, then in that case it will not be aggregated with the rest of the estate for the purposes of the estate duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries Burghs, when this matter was raised last year by my noble friend, pointed out that no doubt to some extent this was a relief to lineals, for the result was that the rate of estate duty was less from this non-aggregation. But my noble friend very fairly said that that did not remove the grievance of lineals, because inter se they still had to pay the rate of duty on the whole of the property passing to them at death, although the main bulk of the property would pass to the elder son, and a very small portion pass to the younger children, on which the younger children would have to pay a high rate of duty. My noble friend endeavoured last year to remedy this grievance. Well, I think he felt that the proposal he made would not satisfactorily effect his desires, and I know that he has devoted very much consideration to the clause which he has just moved. In fact, I think any one who listened to the speech he has just delivered will recognise that he has gone into the minutiæ of a complicated subject with great ability and energy. But I am bound to say—and my noble friend is aware of the fact—that the clause as it stands, if embodied in the law, would not carry out his wishes, because, although it would remedy some grievances, it would effect other grievances even greater than those which he seeks to remedy. He proposes to take away with one hand a certain amount from the Revenue, and to give a considerable amount with the other hand. Having had this matter investigated during the last three weeks very carefully by the Board of Inland Revenue, I do not think the net loss to the Revenue would be very serious. But there would be grievances effected in certain cases, which my noble friend and the hon. Member for Woodbridge who sits beside hint are aware of, and which I am quite sure neither of them would desire to inflict. Now I have a proposal to make to my noble friend. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth and the hon. and learned Member for the Dumfries Burghs were here to-day, I think they would admit that this question of aggregation is not at present in a satisfactory condition; they would admit that there is ground for the complaint my noble friend has made, and that some endeavour should be made to remedy that complaint, without at the same time causing other sources of complaint and of loss to the Revenue. Now, if my noble friend will not press this clause to-day, what 1 propose is this. The question is most complicated and most difficult. It is one which if the House would be good enough to take my advice they would not attempt to deal with without inquiry. I would propose that in the course of the autumn a Departmental Committee should be appointed to consider this subject, on which I should be extremely glad to have the services of my noble friend and of other hon. Members who are interested in this matter. We must endeavour to thresh the matter out and arrive at some result, which may be embodied in legislation next year, which will remedy this grievance without causing any great loss to the Revenue or creating other grievances.

I believe that there are in the House a few Members who think that they understand this subject, but are there any Members who really in their conscience could declare that they do understand the question? I am not so sure but that there are two gentlemen sitting next each other on the Opposition bench—the noble Lord and the hon. Member for Woodbridge—who understand it; and the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who knows everything; and there are my hon. and learned friends, the Members for Dumfries and Haddington, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman who at present holds that office. A good many of these authorities—certainly all on this side of the House—are absent to-day. Far be it from me to intervene in a matter which I cannot say I really understand. But the right hon. Gentleman has made a proposal which appears to me to be exceedingly discreet and wise. There is a danger, in the administration of this most intricate law, of harshness towards individuals, and also a danger of affecting the interests of the State. The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand it, proposes that there shall be a Departmental Committee, or a body of that kind, to inquire into the working of aggregation, and to report what amendment that Committee would recommend on the present practice. I have had an opportunity of knowing to some extent the opinion of the author of the Act, my right hon. friend the Member for West Monmouth, and, although I am not entitled to speak in his name, I under- stand he will have no objection to an inquiry into the matter. Of course the inquiry is to affect not the principle but the working of the provision which carries the principle into effect. That being so, I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the opinion on this side of the House, very unworthily represented by me, is in favour of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for a Committee.

I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for the compliment he has paid me that I know everything. I know perfectly well that under certain circumstances and on some occasions I can be as ignorant as the Leader of the Opposition himself. I have, I admit, taken some trouble in regard to this question of aggregation. As to the particular point referred to by my noble friend, it is one of the grievances called "hard cases." It is not a very large grievance and it exists in a very few limited number of instances. If my noble friend's clause were adopted it would, undoubtedly, not have any great effect on the Revenue. While it would relieve to some extent a hardship, it would bring in further revenue in another direction. But I think it is extremely dangerous to deal with an Act of this sort piecemeal and by way of meeting hard cases as they arise. If you have to deal with it you should deal with principles, and modify them where you can. I will not enlarge upon the Amendment of my noble friend, because I presume, that, after the concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will not press it. What I say, however, is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has bowels of compassion for some of the hard cases under this Act, but for others he seems to have none. The case of aggregation I fully admit is one of the difficulties of the Act. I have made a calculation, and have arrived at the conclusion, and I believe I am right, that instead of there being, as was intended under the Act, one aggregation of all property, there are no less than 19 aggregations and segregations of property, and so, instead of having one rate, you have 19 different rates; therefore no doubt aggregation in itself and by itself is a very proper subject for inquiry, but it is not the only subject for inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to inquire into one of the hardships which he thinks may be included in this Act, there are others which require attention. There is the assumption that everything a man has in his life is supposed to be a fraud under the Act. There is the assumption under which you give your wife a ring, and die within twelve months, and your wife has to pay duty on all the rest of the property. Then again, if a man gives a reduction of 25 per cent. in the rent to his tenants, duty has to be paid on the 25 per cent. because it is a gift. I could name half a dozen hardships and I therefore trust that if a Departmental Committee is to be appointed it will not be restricted to the question of aggregation.

I have listened with attention to the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn. The clause of the noble Lord is one which deals with a subject which I agree is a very intricate one. Aggregation under the Finance Act is simple enough where it is a case merely of two estates belonging to the same testator passing at death. There it is a plain enough principle to treat them as one. But when you come to two estates passing upon the testator's death, one of which has riot been his own, you get to a much more difficult question of justice. It may often be very unfair to tax on the aggregate footing. There are other cases in which it may be apparent that such taxation should take place, and the difficulty is to find the true principle. Now, as the law at present stands it is very defective. If an estate not belonging to the testator passes to one son on his death, and another estate to another son, there is aggregation. It may be a very small estate or a very big estate, and that may be a real injustice; because the duty is not, as is generally the ease with the testator's property, taken out of the bulk of the testator's property before it passes to the beneficiary; the whole burden in that case may fall upon one very ill able to bear it. Take another instance. Property passes on a testator's death to his brother, part of it under the testator's own will, and part of it under an outside settlement. There is no aggregation. This case is as wrong as the other is unjust, yet both arise under the law of the existing Act. The amendment of the noble Lord has much to commend it, but in this proposal every reform in so difficult a field wants great consideration. The suggestion of a Committee which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to me to be a very proper one, and a suggestion to which Members on this side of the House should accede. Speaking for myself, I have only one view of what is right with regard to this matter, and that is while being ready to strengthen the Act in order to carry out its principle, to be ready equally to pare off all the minor injustices—sometimes, I admit, galling—arising from the application which has been made of a novel principle in an Act which is without exact precedent.

In moving the clause I had no intention of going behind the Act. I am perfectly confident that the more the matter is scrutinised the more clearly will it be established that there is an injustice, and as an inquiry has been promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

At the present time, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, the principle of the Act is that the first duty shall be charged upon the principal value, but in the case of agricultural property there is a special proviso which provides that the principal value shall not exceed 25 times the annual value as assessed. The animal value is arrived at by a severe process of deduction. There are deductions for tithes, insurance, rates, management, and rents—in fact, for every conceivable charge on land; and the absolutely irreducible minimum which is left, multiplied by 25, is the principal value to be taxed. That proviso was introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury, the intention of the proviso being clearly shown by the following short extract from the right hon. Gentleman's speech:

"The main object of my Amendment is to secure that the owners of agricultural land, which is practically, or very nearly, unsaleable, shall pay upon the value which such land will fetch in the open market. Of course I admit that 25 years' purchase is probably far too much for a great deal of the agricultural land of the country."

There are three ways of dealing with this question. You may either remove the proviso and leave agricultural land to be treated on its real principal value, or you may say—and I think this is the method to which I should give preference—that twenty-five years, instead of being the maximum, should be the minimum. Then there is the third method, which I now propose to the House, and that is, to extend to other land beside agricultural land the advantages given to that particular land. I do not think it right that an estate which brings in net £1,000 a year should only pay on £25,000 value. Would a gentleman who has an estate worth £1,000 a year be prepared to take £25,000 for it? I doubt very much whether he would take £40,000 or £50,000; and if there were special advantages attaching to it he might ask £60,000, £70,000, £80,000, or even £90,000. I therefore think there is a specially favourable estimate given to agricultural land, which I think should be extended to other land. Take an example. Two very interesting Returns have been presented to the House with regard to the purchase of land by the War Office on Salisbury Plain. They are not absolutely correct—neither gross nor net rental is correct. We have heard today from the Under Secretary of State for War that the gross rentals are not correct because the farmers are claiming the deductions which they have had for years, part of which are not included. Therefore any deduction I draw from the Returns would be rather less favourable than they appear. I only propose to draw one moral from the figures, and that is, that the gross rental is admittedly higher than the rental the farmers have paid. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue tell us that the average number of years' purchase on which they have been getting duty on the gross annual value is, in the ease of agricultural property, between 16 and 17; in the case of house property—i.e., leasehold, no doubt—between 15 and 16; and in the case of ground rents about 27, so that there is an enormous difference. The gross rental in the return is £9,129, and if we multiply it by 17 it will give the value of the whole property at about £160,000. The War Office paid £476,000 for it, and therefore it comes to this, that while the selling price in the market is £476,000, estate duty is only paid on £160,000. Then, if the net rental of £6,316 is multiplied by 25, it gives £157,000. There again there is a very vast difference between the sum on which duty is paid and the actual price of the estate. I think it is right that agricultural land should have these advantages, but I hold also that other classes of land should have the same advantages. I have never ceased in my opposition, not to the death duties, for I regard them as an excellent form of taxation, but to the false principle and the exaggerated rates of duty imposed by the Finance Act of 1894. But if the principle of the Act is to remain, if the rates of the duty under it are to be charged, then let us all be tarred with the same brush as regards personal property, agricultural property, and urban landed property. The reason is that I know perfectly well that if I get everybody tarred with the same brush they will be more ready to join with me in securing Amendments. My difficulty always has been to get the assent of the country gentlemen to the improvement of this Act. They will not assist me because they are taxed so lightly under this 25 years' arrangement; but if I can get all the duty put up to the same rate, then I think they will not be able to wrap themselves in their mantle of 25 years and hold themselves disinterested. It is a very great advantage when we wish to have a bad law repealed to put it in force as far as possible, and it is on that principle that I should like to see a bad law made a little more harsh where it presses least. The Amendment which I propose to move would extend to other land the provisions which now apply to agricultural land. I can hardly expect its ready acceptance by my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, I rather expect his opposition, because he told the House he meant to resist whatever I propose in reference to the death duties.

No, no!

Let me quote my right hon. friend's words:

"I have resisted the insidious proposal of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and, whatever he says, I shall continue to resist him, because I know that his object is to destroy the Act, not legitimately, but by evasions which will prevent its working."

I have never suggested evasions, but I have proposed Amendments. My right hon. friend says he will always resist my proposals, but he accepted half a dozen of them in the Act of 1896, although he did not think it necessary to inform the House that they were my suggestions. I do not expect that my present proposal will be accepted, but I put it forward for consideration, and the reasons I have given in support of it are not without a certain amount of cogency. New Clause (extension of special method of valuation of agricultural property to other landed property)—(Mr. Gibson Bowles)—brought up, and read the first time.

The hon. Member's speech is a singular argument in favour of the proposal he has made to the House. He started with the assumption that agricultural land had an unfair advantage in taxation by the proviso in the Finance Act. The hon. Member's original proposal on the Paper was that instead of 25 years being the maximum, it should be the minimum at which agricultural land should be valued. What he really desires is to increase the number of years' purchase at which agricultural land is assessed for the purpose of the death duties, and his argument tended in that direction because he based it on the price given by the War Office for the land recently purchased on Salisbury Plain for manœuvring purposes. When land is purchased under compulsory powers by a Government Department from owners who do not wish to sell, it is not likely that it will be obtained at a low value. It would be absurd to assess for taxation the land generally throughout the country on such a basis. The hon. Member says he thinks the law as it stands is inequitable. What did he say when this very proviso was under discussion? He said it was a concession on the part of the Government, and he went on to point out that the Government had driven rather a hard bargain, as the number of years' purchase of agricultural land was taken at 25 as a maximum, but that so high a figure had never been taken up to the present in regard to agricultural land. Therefore the hon. Member at the time did not think it unfair or inequitable to assess agricultural land more lightly than any other class of land or property, Now he desires, by his proposal, not to increase the rate at which agricultural land may be assessed, but to extend a low rate of assessment to other classes of realty. In the first place, I would say, in regard to house property, that there is absolutely no reason for the proposal. House property must necessarily be subject to very large deductions for repairs in assessing its annual value for the purpose of death duties or anything else. I find that the highest average number of years' purchase at which house property has been valued in the course of the last five years for death duty is a little over eighteen years on the net value, which is lower than the average on agricultural land, so that if the proviso of the hon. Member were applied to house property it would have no practical effect, while it would draw a most invidious distinction between freehold and leasehold house property, and I think he will see that himself. But when we come to another head of realty, viz., ground rents, I must venture to say that this proviso would be entirely inapplicable. Ground rents are not too heavily taxed, in my opinion—I have never thought otherwise—for death duty purposes, for the simple reason that they are not liable to the kind of deductions to which the ordinary ownership of real property, such as houses and agricultural land, is liable. I hope I have said enough to convince the House that the proposal of my hon. friend is unnecessary and impracticable.

My hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, on questions of this nature, is regarded as a very competent authority, and I could hardly believe my eyes when I read the suggestions in his first clause. I need hardly assure him that I would rather endeavour to forget what is past, and to believe that he placed his clause on the paper simply for the purpose of illustration. My hon. friend talks about an irreducible minimum in connection with the value of agricultural landed property. If my hon. friend had any practical experience he would know differently. We all find that what we thought was an irreducible minimum last year is from various causes still further reduced this year. Then, my hon. friend makes no distinction between the case of an estate determined in accordance with an Act of Parliament depriving owners of their land without their consent and that of land disposed of in the open market. I am sorry my hon. friend has so far fallen away from his sphere of usefulness, and I am sorry also to take exception to another line of argument he employed. He talked of the death duties as a very sound source of Revenue, subject to the restrictions which he himself would place upon them. I think they are a very objectionable means of raising Revenue, and I have always held that view. My hon. friend's authority is high—I say it in no sarcastic spirit—no one knows the system and principles of taxation better than he does, but he has not added to his authority by that statement. I have no objection to relief being given to the taxpayer if it he put forward on a fair and thorough basis, but I do not understand when my hon. friend proposes his clause that that is his intention. I think it will have the effect of weakening the slight concession made to agricultural land, and I hope on this ground that he will not press the matter.

I understand, from what fell from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that certain lands have been sold to the War Office on Salisbury Plain, and that this land would amount, roughly speaking, to £150,000. These lands, I understand, have been sold for something like £400,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says we must take into consideration the fact that something was paid for disturbance. I believe 10 per cent. was paid for disturbance, and that would be in all £165,000. Consequently the landowners are gaining too great an advantage from the present state of the death ditties. Admitting that they have been sold at a fair price, as a matter of fact, landowners at the present moment only pay between one-third and one-half of what other persons with money have to pay for death duties. If that is so, I can only say that landowners gain an undue advantage as against personal property, and the sooner that state of things is altered the better it will he for the community.

I desire to point out that we have not seen these clauses before, and we do not know anything about the changes proposed in the Finance Bill which we are considering. The right hon. Gentleman is now proposing an Amendment which we have never seen before. I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman will give the matter consideration he will come to the conclusion that we ought to have the Bill printed as it now stands, and let us see it in its new form before he asks us to proceed with it.

I omitted in the first instance to move that the Bill should he reprinted, and afterwards I forgot the matter; but this clause which I desire to amend is the clause imposing the duty on bottled spirits. I should be very happy to read it.

We cannot take it in like that, because we have not measured carefully the effect of this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman has, I dare say, explained very fully the meaning of this Amendment. At the same time I must appeal not only to his sense of fairness, but also to his recollection of the ordinary proceedings of the House, whether it is not an extraordinary thing to ask us to discuss this Finance Bill without having had the Bill reprinted with the Amendments inserted in it in Committee. I venture to say that a first-class Bill of this kind should have been reprinted, because the Bill was very substantially amended in Committee. There were great changes made in the rates chargeable on wines and spirits, and there was a long Amendment inserted by the hon. Member for Staffordshire. I notice on the Paper that there is a series of important Amendments by the right hon. Gentleman, and I think he will readily see what sort of position we are in. Surely we ought to have the Bill before us after going through Committee, as it issued from that stage, before we are invited to consider any further Amendments upon it. I do dot think it would be unreasonable to adjourn the consideration of this Bill until Thursday, in order that we might have the Bill reprinted.

In order to give effect to the contention put forward I will move "that the consideration of this Bill be postponed." The Chancellor of the Exchequer knows perfectly well that the Bill will pass on Thursday if it is taken up then, and the right hon. Gentleman must admit the reasonableness of the claim for delay.

I beg leave to second the adjournment, and I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept it, because otherwise a very dangerous precedent may be set. The House has very strict rules in reference to financial matters, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure, would not like to weaken our control in regard to financial legislation. A great many important changes, and certainly a very important new clause, was introduced, which I did not quite understand, by the hon. Member for West Staffordshire. We have not seen the Bill printed in its amended form, and we have not had an opportunity of putting down any Amendment. As a matter of principle, as well as propriety, I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to postpone the Bill. The London Government Bill is the next order, and we can get on with that. We will give every facility for the passing of this Bill, but I think we ought to maintain the absolute freedom of the House in dealing with financial matters.

I really think that I have some grounds of complaint, for, although I assumed that the Bill would be reprinted, no notice was given me that objection would be taken to proceeding with the Bill because it has not been reprinted. If this matter had been mentioned to me yesterday—

But we did not know until this morning.

There have not been such important changes in the Bill as hon. Members seem to think, although some changes were made in the wine and spirit duties. However, I do not wish to force the matter on the House, and as the Bill has not been printed I will consent to the debate being adjourned.

I think that the attitude of those who have oft-times the control of public records is hardly so sympathetic as it should be, and they do not take that care and interest in them which they should. I think, therefore, that the Amendment I have on the Paper is necessary, especially the last portion empowering new borough councils to spend money in the proper registration of their records.

Order, order The hon. Member cannot, move the last portion, as it clearly involves a charge upon the rates.

Then I beg to move the first portion of the clause down to the word "for their preservation." New clause—

"No person shall be eligible as borough councillor who bolds any office the salary of which is paid either wholly or partly out of funds provided either directly or indirectly out of the rates or out of the county fund. It shall be the duty of every new borough council formed under this Act by the incorporation of a single parish to take effectual measures for the care and preservation of all vestry minutes, rate books, valuation books, maps, and all other records belonging to the civil parish, and in cases when a new borough council is formed by the incorporation of several parishes or district boards, it shall he the duty of the new borough council to collect the records belonging to the said parishes and district boards, and to take measures for their preservation. And it shall be lawful for any new borough council to expend money out of the rates fir the preparation and printing of inventories and calendars of such documents which may be deemed to be of historical or public interest."—(Mr. Moon.)

brought up, and read the first time.

I am in hearty sympathy with my hon. friend. I think indeed, a question has already been put to me in the House on the general subject, and that I have given a specific answer. I do not think it would be desirable to attempt to deal with the preservation of ancient records in a clause of this kind, simply in reference to the case of London, and not in reference to the country at large. I think it is true that all over the country we have a very imperfect record of historic documents, and probably the people who are day by day in occupation of their office do not devote that attention and money that is required in order to keep in order valuable and historic documents which throw a very useful light upon the past. I do not think that anything will be gained for the object which my friend has in view by adopting even only the words he is allowed to move. He cannot move the latter part of his proposed Amendment because that would be out of order, and with regard to the other portion I think the whole matter is amply safeguarded by present legislation. The whole subject is at present under investigation, and a Report will shortly be represented upon which practical steps will, probably, be taken, applying to the whole of the country.

After the observation made by the right hon. Gentleman I do not propose to support the Amendment. I hear with great pleasure the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and, as he realises the importance of the matter and is only deterred from dealing with it by the fact that it should be dealt with comprehensively, I hope that when he does deal with the matter, having regard to the great importance of the question, he will precede any step which he intends to take by having a systematic inquiry.

I beg leave to withdraw the clause.

The object of the Amendment I have placed upon the Paper is to provide an easy, expeditious and cheap method of dealing with any questions of law that may arise with reference to this Bill. The proposed clause is merely a reproduction of Clause 8, which was put into the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894. In both cases, but especially as regards the Act of 1888, that clause has been largely availed of and has been found very useful. I do not think anyone can object to the clause, because it does not make this mode of raising a question exclusive, but merely provides that it shall be raised in accordance with the precedent I have referred to. I beg to move the clause. New clause—

"If any question arises, or is about to arise, as to whether any power, duty, or liability is or is not transferred by or under this Act to the council of any metropolitan borough, or any property is or is not vested in any such council, that question, without prejudice to any other mode of trying it, may, on the application of the council, be submitted for decision to the High Court in such summary manner as, subject to any rules of Court, may be directed by the Court; and the Court, after hearing such parties and taking such evidence (if any) as it thinks just, shall decide the question."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

brought up and read the first time.

I doubt whether this clause will be as necessary as the one in the Acts of 1888 and 1894; at the same time I have no objection to it whatever.

The Amendment I now propose is a drafting Amendment, and at the same time rests upon the principle which I understood the House and Committee adopted, namely, that the whole of the county outside the City is to be comprised in the Schedule of the Bill. That being so, the wording of the section is not very applicable to the case, and this Amendment is merely to make it applicable.

The object of these Amendments taken altogether is to get rid of any friction that is likely to arise in the creation of areas outside London. That is one of the objects for which the Bill was introduced, and I am bound to say that the most extraordinary state of things that was ever seen in this House occurred on the last evening of this discussion, when we had about 17 areas scheduled in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury cut and carved out the rest of London at his own sweet will. What was done was done, I am glad to say, in a very satisfactory manner, and I do not propose to oppose this Amendment. I am glad now that there is so little left for the Commissioners to deal with, and I think we ought to ask the Government whether, under the circumstances, it is necessary to appoint special Commissioners.

It seems to me the hon. Gentleman is rather hard to please. He first congratulates the Government on carving up the boroughs, and then he objects to the way in which it is done. The arrangement has been eminently successful. It was impossible to lay down a hard and fast proposition, and I think we have approached the limit of perfection as nearly as poor human nature can be expected to approach it. We may confidently expect that when the Schedule does appear it will embrace nearly all London. I think this Amendment should he accepted.

The whole of London is included, except, perhaps, Stoke Newington.

We have arranged for that.

If that is to be a separate borough, I think it ought to be so decided.

The Solicitor-General said that his Amendment was to adapt the Bill to the Schedule. The Schedule is not complete, and I do not think there is anything relating to the way in which Stoke Newington is to he dealt with. That being so, I do think the Committee is entitled to ask the Government now how they intend to proceed in that matter.

I should suggest that that should be reserved till we reach the Schedule, when it will be open to hon. Members to discuss this matter and modify the Schedule; in which case we shall have to remodel the Bill.

I want to know what is going to be done in Stoke Newington. I do not see how such cases as Stoke Newington can be dealt with if this sub-section is taken out. If Stoke Newington, with a population of only 30,000 or 40,000, is to be made into a borough, why should not Plumstead, with a population of 62,000, have the same privileges?

My hon. friend will, I think, see that if I complied with his desire I would be gradually dragged into a most inconvenient discussion on the Schedule. My hon. friend will have full opportunity on the Schedule of explaining his views in regard to Stoke Newington and Plumstead, and I very earnestly hope that he will reserve to that occasion any controversial matter he may desire to bring forward.

In discussing this question of the eligibility of women to serve as aldermen or councillors in the new borough councils, I hope that the House will remain in the same good temper which prevailed when the subject was under discussion on a former occasion. I believe it is admitted on all hands that it is neces- sary that in the Bill this question should be settled by express words. As the Bill now stands there arc various opinions as to what it effects. Some hold that women are clearly eligible to sit as councillors, but not as aldermen; while others hold that women are not only eligible to sit as councillors and aldermen, but are eligible even to become mayors. I think it is well to dismiss the question altogether of the interpretation of the Bill as it stands, and to decide expressly whether women shall be eligible to sit as councillors and aldermen. These councils which we are now creating will take over with very little alteration the work of the existing vestries. It may be that in the future that work will be enlarged, and I shall be glad to see every opportunity seized to increase the scope of the work; but I do not think that the work will be seriously enlarged for sonar time. Now, on the vestries as at present constituted women sit. They are eligible to be elected, and they are elected. I find there is a large concurrence of opinion from those who have had practical experience of the work of women on vestries that there is much appropriate work for them to do, which cannot be discharged with equal qualifications and ability by the male members of the councils. The most important work of the new borough councils for a long time will be sanitary work; and in relation to the provision of sanitation, the revision of existing deficiencies, suggestions for the amendment of sanitary legislation, and, above all, sanitary inspection and supervision, women have shown themselves in the vestries to be pre-eminently qualified. I am aware that in some vestries—at least in one vestry—a motion has been carried against the admission of women to the councils. We should take that for what it is worth; but against the significance attached to the fact that the adverse motion had been carried by a majority in the Kensington Vestry, I would put this circumstance, that even while the Bill has been passing through the House there have been elections to the vestries all over London, and that a woman has been elected to sit in that particular vestry, and in the case of other vestries women have been elected. The electors therefore have attested their desire that women should be eligible to sit in vestries and councils. When the House considers the character of vestry work, the experience we have had of women sitting on the vestries, and this happy state of opinion on the part of the electors, that they at least desire that women should remain eligible, would it not be a very strong action on the part of the House to declare that, although they had been eligible and had served with usefulness, and even with distinction, in the past, they should be no longer eligible? I call scarcely believe that a majority in this House will, under these circumstances, take away the franchise and the eligibility which have been found to be a valuable element in the constitution of the vestries. We now come to the question of aldermen, which is a different question, because hitherto the vestries have had no aldermen. There are several Members in this House who object to aldermen altogether, but we cannot enter on that question now, since the House has decided to accept the principle that aldermen are to form part of the new boroughs. But the question arises whether women as well as men should be eligible to serve as aldermen. Now I hold that the work to be discharged justifies the eligibility of women as aldermen as much as councillors. There is this difference only between the two eases. Women as councillors might have to undergo contested elections, whereas women as aldermen will obtain their position by the co-option of the elected members of the council. I could conceive many Members objecting to women having to face the exigencies and experiences of a contested election, but that argument, whatever it is worth, does not at all apply to women being declared eligible to serve as aldermen. Many are quite ready to have women as aldermen who would hesitate to have them as councillors, and I cannot see any possible reason why those who want women to be councillors can object to women being aldermen. My proposal goes no fort her than that. Some desire that women should be eligible as mayors, but I make no such proposition. There is one substantial reason why the line should be drawn at mayors, and that is, that the mayors of the new councils will be ex officio justices of the peace. Now, what reason is there why women who are now eligible as vestry-women and councillors should not be aldermen? The only reason alleged, that I know of, is the suggestion that if this provision is introduced into the constitution of the metropolitan boroughs it will be necessary to carry their eligibility into all the municipal boroughs throughout the length and breadth of the country. I see no necessity for carrying that eligibility further than is now proposed, unless it is found that the experiment now suggested works well, and if it works well I do not know why it should not be so extended. But the reason for adopting the proposal here is, it is something that stands by itself, and does not require that the experiment should be carried further than it is now proposed to be carried. The question of the boroughs in the country may be considered in the future if the experience of London warrants making the same proposal in respect to these country boroughs. I beg to propose the Amendment standing in my name.

I do not at all quarrel with the decision which has placed my right hon. friend in front of me, because he has put the issue before the House in a form which, if different from mine, is, at all events, a definite issue, and one on which the House can come to a decision, and set the matter at rest. The House will recollect that the question whether women should be eligible as councillors, aldermen, or mayors was practically left at the close of the debate in the state precisely where it was when the Bill was introduced. There were three Divisions taken in Committee, each contradicting the other, and the whole question was left in a hopeless tangle from which my right hon. friend the Leader of the House promised to extricate it on the Report stage. I should like to remind the House that on the Second Reading of the Bill the First Lord of the Treasury, in answer to a question, said there was no doubt that under the Bill women could sit as councillors, but that, there was considerable doubt as to whether they could sit as mayors or aldermen. But I am anxious that they should not sit either as councillors or aldermen. I am aware that the action which I have taken in this matter is not approved of by that portion of the fair sex which set up a claim to be on an equality with men in most things, if not in all, and who are everlastingly proclaiming to the world their rights and their wrongs. On the other hand, I feel satisfied in my own mind that if the House were to reject the proposal before it the bulk of the women in the country would be glad. The proposal to drag them and their sisters into municipal and political warfare—because it must come to this—is not regarded with favour by the great majority of women throughout the country. I read with some interest the report of a meeting held the other day by the Women's Liberal Federation, at which one of the speakers, a woman, denounced as "venomous persons" those who are opposed to the women's franchise. I am bound to assume I am one of those "venomous persons" whom these ladies would like to see out of Parliament; and I have no doubt my punishment will come in due course when the Government sees fit to dissolve Parliament. My right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin has said that women are eminently qualified to undertake the duties which would be imposed on the councils of these new boroughs. He alluded to only one duty, the supervision of sanitation. But I should like to ask my right hon. friend, what do women know about building operations, street and road-making, drain-making, sewer-inspection, rate-making, and the assessment of houses? I could enumerate an infinity of other duties which, it is clear to my mind, a woman cannot discharge. It is true, I admit, that women already sit on some of the metropolitan vestries, and my right hon. friend says they have served with distinction. Well, that is not my experience. I could count on my fingers the women who sit on vestries in the metropolis, and my experience is that they are failures, and, in addition to that, they are practically nonentities.—["Oh! oh!" and "Hear! hear!"]—I quite understand that those hon. Members who are in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's proposition object to my describing these women as "failures" and "nonentities," but that is, of course, my personal opinion. We do not want these ladies on the borough councils. I believe the majority of the Members who desire to see this Bill effective want to have men elected on these new councils who have business capabilities, who have been trained to public life, and who would bring to bear on the deliberations and decisions of these councils practical experience. I am aware that women sit on boards of guardians throughout the country, and am perfectly willing to admit that they do very good service on these boards. There are duties in connection with the working of boards of guardians which women can very properly undertake, especially amongst the women and children in the workhouses, and on the outdoor roll. But, because on some of these bodies women are doing good service, is that any good reason why they should be admitted to other spheres where, in my view, they would be altogether out of place? I venture to say that, if their claim to sit on the new borough councils is admitted, and the House this evening says by its vote that they shall be eligible for these councils, their ambition will lead them to still higher flights. They will want the Parliamentary franchise, and even other higher privileges. At the risk of producing another shudder in the breast of the Leader of the House, I must repeat that if the House grants the privilege to women of sitting as councillors or alder-men in these councils, there is no logical! reason whatever for excluding them here-after from the House of Commons itself. At a meeting which was held in London within the last few days of a great number of ladies who are in favour of this privilege being accorded to them, and where some gentlemen more or less prominent in Parliament were present, the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth made a characteristic speech, in which he said that the House of Commons was a curious body (which we all admit, of course)—that one day it passed a law against gambling, and the next day it adjourned for the Derby. And the hon. Baronet went on to say that if women sat in Parliament they would do nothing so inconsistent as that. He added that women were as fit as males were to sit in Parliament. Sir Arthur Arnold, at the same meeting, said he believed strongly that the office of Archbishop of Canterbury should be open to women. I think that reduces the matter almost to an absurdity. So that if the women themselves do not aspire to priestly office, there are some men who would claim that for them. If we admit women as councillors to the new boroughs, it is practically impossible to exclude them from the offices of aldermen and mayor. All I can say is that if in addition to the House allowing women to sit as councilors they also allow that they should be eligible as mayors and aldermen, then the whole thing will be reduced to an absurdity and a farce. I only know one case where a woman has been elected as a mayor, and that was in New Zealand, where women have the franchise and other privileges. I hold in my hand a letter in which it is stated:—

"There has been only one Lady Mayor in New Zealand. She was Mrs. Yates, and she held office in the town of onehunga, near Auckland, in the year 1894. The proceedings at her local Council were often ill-tempered and disorderly, and though she has since asked the ratepayers to re-elect her they have not done so.

Well, I do not want myself to see an imitation of that kind in this country. The great argument which I venture to use against women being admitted is that they do not at present sit on the provincial municipalities, nor on the London County Council; but I cannot for a moment believe that the House of Commons, having admitted women into active public life in the borough councils, could deny them the privilege of sitting in provincial municipalities. For my part, I sincerely hope that the House will come to a definite issue upon this subject, and that they will resolve that women are not entitled to be either councillors, aldermen, or mayors.

I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two on this question, because I can claim some responsibility for the legislation which at present prevails with reference to the rural districts, the urban districts, and London, because I think it was by the Act of 1894 that all these steps were taken. There is no doubt this question with reference to the position of women requires to be dealt with rather more straightforwardly than it has been by this House. There has been a desire, perhaps not an unnatural desire having regard to some considerations, to shirk the question, and the House has adopted a variety of methods from time to time of postponing anything like a straightforward decision upon the question, which, after all, is of great importance; and I think it is due to the country and to the House of Commons, if the House has views, whether they be adverse or favourable, that they should state them in the open. I would draw a line in the first instance, in what I have to say to-night, between administrative and legislative work. The first step in what is called the enfranchisement of women, but what I would rather call the first step in the State availing itself of the services of women, was in the constitution of school boards, and I do not think that anybody who has served on school boards and knows any-thing of the working of school board education would deny the fact that the presence of women on school boards has been of very great value with reference to female education. Personally, I go so far as to say that I do not think a school board is properly constituted unless there is a woman upon that school board. And I am satisfied that, strong as men may be, and wise as men may be, they never will be able to get that control over female education which an efficient school board ought to have unless they are assisted by ladies in carrying out the administration. Well, Sir, when I went to the Local Government Board I found that there was a considerable difference of legal opinion as to whether women were capable of being elected on boards of guardians. The Local Government Board had avoided, I think under legal advice, giving any very definite opinion upon this question, but I felt so strongly on the point that I issued a circular to the various boards of guardians strongly recommending the election of women on boards of guardians. I agree with every word the hon. Gentleman has just uttered with reference to the great value—I may say the inestimable value—of women upon boards of guardians. So long as you have pauper children, and so long as you have pauper women, you are bound to have women placed in a position of responsibility and control with reference to the management of workhouses and the relief of the poor. The next important step was when, in the Act of 1894, we extended the powers, or rather altered the constitution, of boards of guardians, and made them, in fact, rural councils, reconstructing the whole system of urban councils at the same time. I do not remember that there was any strong debate upon the subject, but at all events Parliament affirmed the principle that women might be upon parish councils, rural district councils, boards of guardians, and urban councils; and it is a narrow line dividing urban district councils from municipal boroughs. But by that Act the whole system of urban district elections was applied to London vestries, who then were the responsible local authorities in London. We are now asked to say that what we did in 1894 was wrong, when women were allowed to serve on the vestries like those of Paddington, Islington, &c., and that women are not competent to serve on those new bodies which are to have the duties of the original authorities. When we are asked to make a change such as this, the onus probandi is upon those who ask that that change may be made. The first question is, Has the election of women been a failure? I do not think the evidence that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given is at all conclusive upon that point. He has been rather severe on the qualifications of the ladies, and on the manner in which they discharge their duties. So far as I have been able to form an opinion, they have discharged their duties with great efficiency and success, and to the advantage of the health of the people of London, who, with almost unanimity, will welcome the presence of women on these new governing bodies. Under these circumstances, I think we should prefer that a very strong case should be made out before we reject services which have been already rendered with efficiency and success. My right hon. friend time Member for Bodmin would exclude women from the office of mayor, recognising that there must be a line drawn somewhere in reference to the extent of female public work. I am bound to tell the House that women are eligible as chairmen of urban district councils, though the House accepted my suggestion specifically prohibiting women from becoming magistrates during their term of office. I now come to a point on which I should like to speak very plainly. While I advocate most strongly the presence of women on these administrative bodies, while I believe they are capable of rendering the greatest service to boards of guardians, urban councils, and district councils, and, I believe, to the councils in London, I am not prepared to go further in that direction. I am prepared, in fact, to steadfastly and persistently oppose any attempt to convert women either into mayors, or magistrates, or archbishops, or heads of police, or generals in the Army, or Members of Parliament. I believe that what the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said on thy last occasion when this question came before the House represented the opinion of a vast majority of the people of this country and all sides of politics, viz., that the presence of ladies in this House would on public grounds be intolerable. I think we ought to talk plainly on this point. While we advocate that the fullest scope should be given to fema1e efficiency and female assistance in public work, we ought not to keep in the background that it is our firm and unalterable determination not to proceed in a direction that would render Parliament ridiculous and the administration of public affairs in this country impossible. I think it right to say plainly, intending as I do to support the motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Bodmin, that I do not regard this as a link in a long chain of events leading to something else. There is a line to be drawn, beyond which I do not believe the people of the country will ever go; but that is no reason why London should be deprived of the great advantage of services rendered by ladies in local administration.

As a matter of right and justice, and in the interests of making these new borough councils as successful as the vestries which they going to supersede, I earnestly hope that this House will by a very large majority pass this Amendment.

I, like my right hon. friend the Member of for Wolverhampton, am logical in these matters. I have voted on all occasions not only against women being members of councils and of the House of Commons, but against them having votes at all, and I always contemplate doing so as long as I have the honour of being a Member of this House. At the present moment you do not allow women to sit on municipal bodies in the country. Why, then, should an exception be made in the case of London? If you admit women in Loudon, the precedent would be followed in the provinces, and the next step would be a claim for women to sit in the House of Commons. I can see the thin end of the wedge in this proposition. Let hon. Members be firm. Let them be men. I will yield to none in my admiration for women. Woman is the right person, provided she is in her right place. There are some who have not been successes as members of their own sex, and who like to muddle and meddle in politics in the hope that they may be successes as men. Although there are weak men on the Opposition side of the House, I am glad to see stalwarts on the other side. The majority of women will not approve of this proposal. The few women who come forward and make a great noise are never supported by their own sex. The right hon. Member for Bodmin was not logical, because he himself does not propose that women should be eligible for the office of mayor. He passed that point over insidiously with a long joke. Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that he will always vote against women being eligible for the office of mayor or for membership to the House of Commons? I hope the House will decide that in the important councils of the nation men, and men only, shall sit.

Hon. Members opposite have made a distinguished convert in the hon. Member who has just spoken.

I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I was opposed to women having votes before half the hon. Gentlemen opposite were born.

Yes, but the hon. Member, who is supposed to be a great Radical, has used the most familiar of Tory arguments against all reform. It is that if something were conceded something else would be forthwith demanded. My hon. friend is affrighted at the prospect of women sitting in this House. The First Lord of the Treasury says that the idea is intolerable, but I will venture on this prediction—that if the time arrives when the electors of this country desire to send women to this House the right hon. Gentleman will look upon this question in a very different light. Hon. Members opposite admit that the services of women on school boards and boards of guardians have been valuable. Let me remind the House that there was a time when the appearance of women on those boards was quite a novelty, and when the pre- diction was freely indulged in that their presence would be injurious. That feeling has now entirely disappeared, and no one wishes to exclude them from those boards. The principle on which I should decide all these questions is the principle of freedom—freedom on the part of those who aspire to positions of public importance, and freedom on the part of the constituencies to send whom they please to Parliament or to other public bodies. The proposal to exclude women is, in my opinion, one the would be unjust to the women of this country and injurious to the country as a whole.

Surely if the people wish to be represented by women, and if they think that their interests would be served by women representatives on the newly created

The Amendment I have to move is—

"To leave out in Clause 2, page 2, lines 5 and 6 the words 'that number being divisible by three.'"

In the debate on this question in Committee the Government found itself obliged to make a concession, which provided that any representation sent to the Local Government Board by a borough council supported by a two-thirds majority in favour of triennial elections would be considered. Whatever the rule is, it ought to be uniform over the whole of London; and by the omission which I propose triennial elections could be obtained. I have no doubt that a substantial majority on the newly created councils will be in favour of triennial elections, but it is not reasonable to suppose that, having regard to the severity of the conditions, all the councils will pass the necessary resolution. It would be absurd to have triennial elections in one district and annual elections in another, and I hope the Government will favourably consider the Amendment I now move.

The proposal made by the hon. and learned Member is, I take it, to leave out these words in order afterwards to insert other words providing for triennial elections over London. When this matter was discussed in Committee a certain solution was arrived at, and I have come to the conclusion that it is better, after considering the views of hon. Members on both sides, that we should adhere to that arrangement.

The House will remember that there was a considerable feeling in favour of triennial elections, and ultimately the Government made the proposal now in the Bill. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to adhere to that compromise. I quite agree that the wording may require some alteration, and I hope the Government will accept an Amendment I propose to move in regard to it. If proper option is given to adopt triennial elections, they will be universally adopted, and therefore the desire we have in our minds will be achieved.

I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned friend the Member for Bethnal Green. I unaware of the compromise arrived at when the Bill was discussed in Committee, but although the borough councils may vote by a two-think majority in favour of triennial elections, representations must afterwards be made to the Local Government Board for their consideration. I believe the same provision was made in the Local Government Act of 1894. Previous to that Act, the elections for Poor Law guardians in London took place annually, but the moment the hoards of guardians had the opportunity for deciding whether they should have annual or triennial elections, they universally decided in favour of the latter. There we have a practical illustration of the feeling in London on this question; and, that being so, why should we not at once make provision in the Bill for triennial elections, without putting the borough councils to the cost of deciding for themselves, when we know by past experience what their opinions will be? There is another important point attached to this Amendment. The chief object of this Bill is to induce the electors to take an interest in local affairs. In the year 1900 this Bill will come into operation. In November we shall have the first elections for the new boroughs, and in the same month we shall have the elections for the London School Board. In March, 1901, we shall have the London County Council elections; in the following month the elections for boards of guardians in London, and possibly in the summer we may have Parliamentary elections, and if this Bill is allowed to stand in its present form we may have in November of that year also the animal elections for the borough councils; so that in 1901 we shall have certainly three, and possibly four, elections. When we ask the people to vote in such a number of elections, they will tell us that they are sick and tired of voting. The School Board, the London County Council, and the new borough councils are bodies of such an important character that we are anxious for the electorate of London to take in interest in their election by voting. My own experience in these local matters is that where you have a constant recurrence of elections you cannot get the people to take an interest in them, and for that reason I will support the Amendment.

These numerous elections are very expensive, and the benefit conferred by this Amendment would be very much appreciated in the divisions referred to. Upon this point I desire to claim the attention of the House, because I am sure that this matter requires more consideration than has yet been given to it. The clause deals with the number of councillors which shall be allotted to each ward. Take my particular division. It has five wards, and the number for each ward are to be selected having regard to rateable value and population. That would be extremely difficult, but we might get over it. But mark the other condition—that the selection of the number must be divisible by three. It must be either three, six, or nine, and you cannot have four, five, seven, eight, or ten. It is hard enough to observe the conditions with regard to population and rateable value, but when you divide by three you put a burden upon the people which will prove to be very onerous. This is no fancied argument, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who has all through adopted a conciliatory attitude, will give it careful consideration. The Solicitor-General was not very strong in opposing this Amendment, and he approached it in the way which he generally adopts when he wants to draw a little more opinion from the House. In every ward you prevent a number of councillors that might be suitable, because the number must be divided by three. Everyone is agreed that in most of these divisions the triennial system will be adopted. We are now trying to ride both horses as the Bill stands, and therefore I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this proposal his careful consideration.

I hope my right hon. friend will not be induced by compliments passed upon his conciliatory disposition to abandon what is really an important part of this Bill by accepting what is a very unreasonable and a somewhat ungracious Amendment. The question was fully argued when the subject of triennial elections was discussed, and strong opinions were expressed on both sides. I hold myself a very strong opinion in favour of annual elections, and, as so much has been said about a larger public interest being aroused by triennial elections, I cannot help remembering the mischief that has been done by the constant intervention of political organisation. There is really nothing in the objection that has just been made, and which my right hon. friend is so solemnly exhorted to take into consideration. The boundaries will be fixed with due regard to population and rateable value in such proportion as will make them fairly equal. The Government made a great concession by inserting a clause under which it was left to the borough council to have an opportunity of addressing the Local Government Board, when that application represented the opinion of a majority of the whole council, to have the election once in three years. That was a considerable concession. It was a compromise which has been frankly accepted by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and surely it is very unreasonable, under the cover of compliments, to endeavour now to upset this decision.

I was very strongly in favour of triennial elections when the question came up, but in view of the fact that the Government made a concession in Committee in favour of triennial elections, I feel it my duty upon this occasion to support the Government.

This clause was practically taken from the Local Government Act of 1894, and the words I now move to omit are words which do not find any place in that Act. They seem to me to restrict the possibility of boroughs having full liberty to adopt the annual system. in an extreme case, if a certain proportion of the 70 members were to stay away they could prevent the adoption of the system of triennial elections. I am afraid that if these words are left in they might put considerable difficulties in the way of the adoption of this provision. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept this Amendment.

I trust the House will retain the Bill as it now stands. I ought to say that at the time this clause was adopted I expressed grave apprehensions at the determination which the London Members had arrived at to adopt a system which certainly could not prove acceptable if extended to the provinces. But the general opinion was so strong among London Members that I made a concession, and we arrived at a compromise which was this—that the councils themselves should have practically the power of adopting the triennial system in preference to the annual system, but it should be done only on the condition that a distinct and absolute majority were in favour of it. It will be observed that if the hon. Member's Amendment is carried and the words in the Bill to which he objects are left out, it would be possible for one-third of the Members to make this great change. That would not be carrying out the intention of the House, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not insist upon a division.

I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to adopt this Amendment, but I rise to call his attention to another point upon which I will not make a motion, but which is closely associated with this question, and which the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to deal with in another place. It bears upon triennial elections, and the point is that it would be extremely in the interests of London electors generally if, wherever a triennial election was ordered by the Local Government Board, it could be ordered for the year 1900, or one of the three years dating therefrom.

The Amendment I now beg to move is one which was submitted to the House in Committee, and after a slight discussion I withdrew it. The object of the Amendment is very simple. We all know that the experience of municipal contests shows that the power of appointing aldermen has often been abused, first of all by the wire-pullers of the party securing the election of all the aldermen, and then by those aldermen joining in the election of subsequent aldermen. The Amendment I propose is very simple in its operation, and will insure the election of aldermen by the minority to an extent corresponding to the position which that minority holds. It can best be explained by an example. A council should never exceed 60 members, so that with the aldermen one in 10 the council should never exceed 70. The common council of 60 comes to elect its aldermen, and under the present system the majority of 31 could elect the whole 10 aldermen, thus converting a majority of 2 in the entire council into a majority of 12. Now, what I propose is that in the first election, where 60 will have to elect 10 aldermen, that when 6 of the councillors join together they shall be able to nominate one alderman, and that all those six councillors shall immediately retire from taking any other part in the election. The result of that would be, that if there was a majority of 14—that is to say, if the council was com- posed of 36 members on the one side and 24 on the other, the 36 would elect 6 aldermen, and the 24 four, which would give each side proportionate representation. Under the present system the experience in many of our boroughs has shown us that the election of aldermen has been a matter of great jealousy, and this has also been the case in the London County Council. In the London County Council a simple majority have always had the power of electing the whole of the aldermen. By this alteration it would limit the number which the majority of a council have power to elect, and give a choice to the minority. The matter is so simple that nobody could pretend to misunderstand it, and the machinery is so simple that it could not go wrong. It would secure the end which we all have in view, which is the addition to the members of the council of an entirely new element, and it would be a simple means of solving what is acknowledged to be a difficult and delicate question, and one which raises an undesirable feeling at the beginning of the career of every council.

I see no reason for altering the view which I expressed on a former occasion at an earlier stage of the Bill that this Amendment should not be accepted. I agree with my right hon. friend that his scheme has the great advantage of being exceedingly simple, and I do not think that there would be any practical difficulty in the way of its working properly. I also agree that it has the great merit of preventing the election of aldermen being used as it machinery in favour of any particular party, but whether it will secure that the councils will obtain a better class men as aldermen I gravely doubt. The practical result will be that a party of six councillors who would vote, or who would meet together to select their alderman, might exercise their choice in favour of individuals for whom no party would be responsible in its collective capacity. On the whole, I am disposed to think that the responsibility which must attach to the organised action of a party must produce better results than the relatively irresponsible action of groups of six gentlemen who would like to elect their own friends. On these grounds I feel constrained to adhere to my former decision, and if my right hon. friend thinks it necessary to divide the House I shall feel obliged to go into the lobby against him.

The Bill as it stands provides that, to be qualified to act as an alderman in a borough, a man must be qualified for election to the county council in that particular borough. My desire is to enlarge that qualification so as to extend it to any one who is qualified to be elected as a councillor for any metropolitan borough and enable him to act as an alderman in any other metropolitan borough. Why should we limit the choice of the electors to nominate an alderman, seeing that the aldermen are chosen by the electors and, of course, would be responsible to them? Persons who are qualified to be elected as aldermen elsewhere surely should be qualified to be elected as aldermen in any particular borough. It is well known that in some parts of the City there are men who have peculiar qualifications for this work who would not be eligible as the Bill now stands. In the interest of the freedom of voice of the electors, I think this would be a great benefit, while on the other hand no harm could be done by it. It simply enlarges the power of choice, and if that is extended it will only be used in the rarest of cases. I beg to move the Amendment.

Perhaps I might remind this House of what occurred with regard to this matter on a previous occasion. When this question was brought forward, I did my best to induce the House to accept the proposal, but the House, after by no means a brief discussion, came to the conclusion that it would not be an improvement to the Bill. I do not wish to withdraw from the position that I then took up, and under the same circumstances I should take the same course again. I would suggest to my right hon. friend that it is hardly worth while to divide the House again upon the subject.

I hope the House will see its way to accept this Amendment. It is quite true that it was raised on another occasion, but it is an Amendment of great importance, and since that time many representatives may have changed their opinions upon it. The kind of man who would make a good alderman might very well live in another part of, London and still by reason of his business connection have a very real interest in a particular district. He might have a real capacity for public business and an earnest desire to interest himself in that borough. So far as I can see I cannot discover any reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. It will only be applied in cases where there are very strong reasons for going outside the borough, and surely you are not going to say by statutory enactment that a borough shall not be able to go outside to elect its aldermen, when by so doing they might find ideal men to fit the position.

I should have been content to give a silent vote on this matter if there had been a desire to discuss the question. I am against it for the reasons that this proposal is against the whole principle of local government in England. The only exception is that of the London School Board, in which, no doubt, there was a reason for breaking the precedent, as what was desired in that case was to get experts in education on the Board. So far as this Bill is concerned, there is no necessity for going outside the area of the borough. I gave the whole argument against this proposal on a previous occasion, and therefore there is no reason for entering into it now. The boroughs of London do not ask for aldermen, and have expressed general dissatisfaction at the idea that they are going to be put upon them, and if you are going now to allow aldermen to elected from the outside you will create greater dissatisfaction than already exists.

I see no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted at once if what the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has suggested is all that can be said against it. The only argument which he appears to have adduced is that if you go outside the boroughs the electors may elect the wrong man. I am sorry he has so little faith in the electors. It may be that there are persons who by long residence or business were once connected with the borough, although they now live elsewhere, who on their retirement from business are taking great interest in public life. Yet, as the Bill now stands, you would refuse any such persons, although the brough councils might recognise that if they could obtain this experience and this knowledge that he would be just the person to be desired.