was under an entire misapprehension, first of all with respect to the Regulations which he thought were in operation. He feared there was no possibility of their coming into operation for some time. By the provision of the Statute they must lie for 40 days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament before they could come into operation. They were laid on the Table of the House of Commons, but not on the Table of their Lordships' House, and therefore they could not receive the approval of Parliament as required. He thought it would be absolutely necessary that they should lie on the Table of the new Parliament before they should come into operation. That was an illustration of the great difficulty in the way of the administration of the Office of Attorney General. His right hon. and learned Friend (Sir Henry James), who had given great labour to this subject, had only the voluntary assistance he could get in his Office, and having laid those Regulations on the Table of the Library of the House of Commons it did not occur to him to do the same thing in the House of Lords. The Regulations of 1879 were still in operation. And here he must ask the noble Earl to give him his attention, because he had made a most serious mistake, the result of which was to cast an imputation on a most distinguished and deserving public officer. The noble Earl had fallen under the impression that Sir Augustus Stephenson had some interest of his own in what he called the hocus-pocus of fees and the deductions. The noble Earl had been entirely misled by some technical phraseology which there was not a solicitor in the country who did not understand. When they spoke of agency charges what was meant was the charges made by one solicitor on another. When a solicitor accepted a retainer from another solicitor he did not make the ordinary charges to a client, but half-charges. The solicitor in London directed a solicitor in the country to take up this or that case as his agent, and under no circumstances could a solicitor acting as agent obtain the full charges of a solicitor. The noble Earl was in error in supposing that the full charges were made in the first instance and that afterwards the deductions were made. The solicitors made out their bills on the agency scale and were paid on that scale. The fees which appeared in the account were the fees actually charged and paid, and there was not the smallest foundation for the imputation that had been made that Sir Augustus Stephenson augmented his salary by charging higher fees than he paid. Sir Augustus Stephenson had done his duty as a public officer in saving what he could save for the public in regard to these public prosecutions; and, on the other hand, the solicitors received every farthing for which they contracted. CUSTOMS DEPARTMEMT-COLLECTORS OF CUSTOMS.-QUESTION. THE EARL OF LIMERICK asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the memorial of the hundred collectors of customs sent in to the Treasury more than four years ago, and to which no answer had been given, would receive consideration; and, whether it was a fact, as stated in The Civilian newspaper, that sixty out of the hundred and twentythree collectorships then existing in the United Kingdom had been abolished, and many collectors made redundant and reduced to subordinate positions; and, whether any steps would be taken to provide for these officers, and to place the junior collectors in the same pecuniary position, at least, as the collectors of inland revenue? THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH (FIRST LORD of the TREASURY): The Memorial in question was received and in due course referred to the Customs. That Board has only recently been able to report upon it, the numerous recent changes in the organization of the Department having entirely altered the conditions which existed when it was first sent in. They have, however, now proposed to the Treasury a scheme for re-classifying the staff of collectors, which is at present under consideration, and the general result of which will be to improve the position of the collectors. The number of collectorships at the out ports has been reduced from 121 to 55; but this reduction has not been applied to any individual collector, so that none of them have suffered pecuniarily. A number of old men have retired, and the redundants have thus been absorbed. Most of these reductions have been made in the smaller collectorates, so that the average salary of a collector is higher than it was by nearly £100 per annum. Of the 100 collectors who signed the original Petition there remain only 15 whose cases call for consideration, and some, if not all, of these will shortly be provided for. With regard to the last words of the Question, the salaries of the Collectors of customs must be fixed with regard to the nature of their duties, which are by no means comparable in many cases with those of the collectors of Inland Revenue. The smaller Customs collectors have very little money, comparatively speaking, passing through their hands. MEDICAL RELIEF DISQUALIFICATION REMOVAL BILL.-(No. 207.) (The Earl of Milltown.) THIRD READING. Order of the Day for the Third Reading read. THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, he desired to thank their Lordships on both sides of the House for their forbearance, which had enabled him to pass this important Bill through the House with such facility. He sincerely trusted and believed that the experience of the next few years would prove to those noble Lords who had expressed doubts as to the expediency of such a measure that their fears had been groundless, and that in granting this important measure of franchise they had acted in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of their countrymen, and earned another title to the respect and esteem in which this House was held by the country. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a." -The Earl of Milltown.) Motion agreed to; Bill read 3", passed. and LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (The Earl Brownlow.) (NO. 221.) SECOND READING. Woolsack. Its object was simply to enable Boards of Guardians to detain lunatics in the workhouses in certain cases. Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." -(The Earl Brownlow.) Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next. House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 31st July, 1885. MINUTES.]-PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Lords Amendts, considered-Worcester Extension. PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Second Reading -Committee-Report-Third Reading-Prince Henry of Battenberg's Naturalization, and passed. First Reading-Second Reading-Committed to a Select Committee-Committee nominated-EarlSecond Reading - Consolidated Fund (Appropri dom of Mar Restitution* [256]. ation); Ecclesiastical Commissioners (No. 2)* [253]; Public Works Loans* [254]; East India (Army Pensions Deficiency) [225]. Committee-Criminal Law Amendment [159] Order of the Day for the Second Read- as the Amendment in page 11, line 21, ing read. THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Earl BROWNLow), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was the same measure as had been presented earlier in the year by the noble and learned Earl who then occupied the The Earl of Iddesleigh agreed to. Clause 21A (Assessment of Railways), the next Amendment, read a second time. MR. ROWLEY HILL, in moving that the House do agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, said, he felt that he occupied a somewhat anomalous Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with The Lords in the said Amendment.”—(Mr. Rowley Hill.) position, seeing that the promoters of the House attached great importance as the Bill, the Worcester Corporation, a matter of principle. That was rejected had used every endeavour to secure the by the other House of Parliament, and rejection of the clause proposed on be- yet the Leaders of the majority in the half of the Great Western Railway Com- Commons advised acceptance of the pany. Before the Committee of the Lords' Amendment, not, as they said, House of Commons the point was argued because they approved of it, but bewith the result that the Committee were cause an opposite course would jeoparunanimous in rejecting the clause. The dize the Bill, and so the Lords' AmendBill then in due course went to the ment on the subject of medical relief Lords, and the Committee of the Lords was accepted, merely because time was inserted the clause. An attempt was short, and otherwise the object of the made to obtain the re-committal of the Registration Bill would have been imBill for the purpose of having the clause perilled. For similar reasons, he begged discussed; but that was objected to by the the House to accept the Amendment to Chairman of the Committee, the Earl of this Bill, and hoped that he would be Limerick, who thought that such a supported by others who yet, as he did, course would imply a reproach to the disapproved of the clause in itself. Committee, and subsequently Earl Beauchamp, on behalf of the promoters, proposed to leave out the clause on third reading. That Motion was opposed and rejected on a division by 37 to 17, and it then became a question whether he, on behalf of the promoters, should ask the House of Commons to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, for his conviction was just as strong as at first that the rating exemption allowed by the clause was an improper Amendment. It was only under stress of the pressure arising from the fear of losing the Bill altogether that he now ventured to ask the House to agree with the Amendment. The promoters had taken counsel with parties interested, and they were told that if the House now disagreed with the Amendment it would be hopeless to think of passing the Bill; it would be lost, and in such a case a severe penalty would be inflicted upon the City of Worcester. The Lords had introduced a clause which was condemned by many persons, but the Corporation were not responsible for that; they had done their utmost to prevent it, and they now asked the House not to tax the City of Worcester with the still more evil consequences that would arise from the rejection of the Bill. Very important sanitary arrangements partially carried out would be stopped, and the loss would be great. In asking the House to accept a Motion he did not approve, but which, under the circumstances, was expedient, he found a parallel in recent proceedings of the House upon an important public mea MR. ATKINSON agreed in many of the remarks just made, but not in the Motion moved by the hon. Member. He said it was an improper clause, which could not be too strongly reprobated, but he asked the House to agree to it, because, he said, it would be prejudicial to the interests of Worcester if the House did not. The answer to that surely was that if it would be prejudicial to the City of Worcester on the one hand, and to the prejudice of all the rating authorities of the country on the other hand, then the City of Worcester ought to give way. He should vote a negative to the Motion. SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY said, he hoped the House would agree with the Lords' Amendment for several reasons. First, because if the House did not do so, it would put an end to those negotiations and courtesies under which Private Bill legislation was conducted. The Great Western Railway Company opposed the Preamble of the Bill before the Committee, and without producing any evidence, they requested to have a clause of this sort inserted in the exact form provided by the Public Health Act of 1875, under which they claimed partial exemption from the local rate. The Corporation of Worcester, for some reason or other, sought to pass this Bill to enable them to extend the boundaries of their borough, and include within those boundaries some 2,000 acres of what was almost all agricultural land, with a would be simply called upon to contribute to the general rates of the City without receiving any consideration. Their contention was that there was no substantial reason for extending the boundary at all. In the Lords Committee upon the Bill, Mr. Michael, Q.C., who appeared for the promoters, stated that they were willing to give to the Railway Company the same clause as that which now existed in the Public Health Act, and upon that understanding the Railway Company withdrew their opposition. When the opponents had accepted the offer, the Preamble of the Bill was passed by the Committee; but Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent after that had been done objection was to several Bills. WORCESTER EXTENSION BILL (by Order). Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.” taken to the Bill in the House of Lords, and a division was taken after the whole circumstances had been gone into in detail. The House of Lords, however, on a division, affirmed what the Committee had done by a majority of some four or five to one. The Great Western Company, the market gardeners, and the other owners and occupiers, asked for nothing more than the law at present gave them. They maintained that if it was considered desirable to extend the boundaries of the City of Worcester, the new property taken in ought to be placed under the same conditions as those which the general law now imposed. They further alleged that precedents were in their favour; and they instanced various Corporation Bills for extending existing boundaries and including a larger area, in which provisions identical with that which had been made in this case had been inserted by Committees of the House of Commons and of the House of Lords, such as the Stafford Corporation Act for creating extended boundaries, the Bedford Improvement Act, the St. Albans Improvement Act, and several others. They also asserted SIR GABRIEL GOLDNEY remarked, that when interrupted by the announcement of a Royal Commission he was calling the attention of the House to the fact that the Amendment ought to be conceded on every principle he had ever been acquainted with in connection with Private Bill legislation during the time he had had the honour of a seat in the House. First, in relation to the interests of the contending parties; secondly, the general policy of the law; and, thirdly, the merits of the question itself. A short history of the case was this. Under the Health of Towns Act, 1875, provision was made by which a certain property outside the boundaries of a borough became liable to be rated under the general law to the district rate at onefourth less than the general property of the town, where expenditure was rendered necessary for the sanitary pur-that two Bills had been passed in the poses of the borough. The present Bill proposed to include within the boundaries of the City of Worcester an area of no less than 1,900 acres, upon which, he understood, the whole population did not amount to more than three persons an acre. The Great Western Railway Company objected to their property, now outside the boundary of the City, being taken out of the general rating principle and being included in the borough rate, on the ground that they would derive no advantage from the change, but Sir Gabriel Goldney present year, in which the same principle was carried out-extended boundaries were created; but although the new area was brought within the borough it still remained under the general law with regard to rating. Under those circumstances, as he had no desire to occupy too much of the time of the House, he would simply say that he thought the House ought to accept the Lords' Amendment. There had been, in the first place, a distinct proposal made to the opponents if they would withdraw their opposition to the Pre- | comprehensive manner, with the whole amble of the Bill; they accepted it, and question of local taxation. In the prethe promoters inserted a clause, which sent case he thought it would have been was adopted by the Committee and wiser, rather than accept this clause, if affirmed by the House of Lords-that the promoters had made up their minds clause being nothing more nor less than to lose the Bill altogether, reserving to a provision which placed this property themselves the right of applying to under the Public Health Act of 1875. Parliament on a future occasion. There had also been precedents for the course pursued not only in previous years, but this year; and if the House decided upon upsetting the arrangement they would render Private Bill legislation practically useless and entail very onerous duties upon Private Bill Committees. They would never know what principle they ought to adopt, because it would be liable to be rejected when the Bill came before the House itself. MR. AGNEW said, that he had served on the Committee which sat upon the Bill, and he might inform the House that the Committee was unanimous in rejecting the clause now under consideration on the ground that they saw no reason why there should be any exemption from the operation of the general law on behalf of this particular Railway Company. The hon. Gentleman had referred to an Act of Parliament which, for sanitary purposes, placed property in districts outside the boundaries of a borough in a different position from property within a borough itself; but he was not aware of any law which compelled a borough or municipal authority to make an exemption in favour of a Railway Company. He was perfectly aware of the instances to which the hon. Member referred; but having served on the Committee, and having heard all the evidence, he thought the Committee was justified in rejecting this proposal. He had been most anxious that the City of Worcester should obtain the extension of boundary which the Corporation desired, if it were not inconsistent with the interests of the locality sought to be included. No doubt, an arrangement had been made, when the Bill was before the House of Lords, whereby the promoters agreed to insert a clause exempting this railway property from assessment to the borough rates. He regretted that that course had been taken; and he thought it afforded another instance of the necessity that Parliament, at no distant day, should deal, in a MR. GREGORY said, it was quite true that there had been cases in which, where there had been an extension of boundaries, the provisions of the Public Health Act of 1875 were still retained, so far as the rating of railways was concerned; but there was this broad distinction between those cases and the present, that the Committee upstairs had refused to make the exemption, after a full and careful consideration of the question. He, therefore, trusted that the House would not consent to establish a dangerous precedent for the future. He should be exceedingly sorry that anything should be done which might ultimately throw out the Bill; but, as the whole matter had been fully discussed by the Committee upstairs, he thought the House ought to maintain the decision of their Committee. MR. HORACE DAVEY said, it was quite true that the clause in the Public Health Act, to which the hon. Baronet the Member for Chippenhan (Sir Gabriel Goldney) had referred, did not, in terms, apply to this particular case; but it had been thought right by a Committee in "another place" to take it up and apply it in pursuance with a bargain which had been entered into between the various parties who were interested in the Bill. It was only on the withdrawal of the opposition that the Preamble of the Bill was passed. His hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had spoken as if the clause applied only to the Railway Company. It applied not to the Railway Company only, but to owners and occupiers, market gardeners, nursery grounds, and other descriptions of property; and he trusted the House would not allow the promoters of the Bill to retreat from the bargain which they had made in the House of Lords. Question put. The House divided:-Ayes 103; Noes 29: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 260.) Subsequent Amendments agreed to. |