bers to give their support to the second | improvements. Therefore, Sir, the reading of the Bill. Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. Leveson Gower.) LORD ALGERNON PERCY: Sir, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, because I believe that it is bad in principle, and that its passage would create an evil precedent as regards the creation of improvements and the maintenance of roads in the Metropolis. As the hon. Gentleman opposite has said, the circumstances are somewhat peculiar. The land originally was part of the Green Park. The improvements were made without any consultation taking place between the Government and the Vestries, either of St. Martin-in-the-Fields or of St. George's, Hanover Square, who are interested in the matter. In Clause 1 it will be noted that the Bill provides that the Metropolitan Board of Works shall direct that the streets shall be wholly or partially under the management of all or any of the following Bodies:-that is to say, the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Vestry of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, and that the roads shall be maintained by those Bodies. But there is another objection-namely, that the parishes are to be charged with the expense incurred in the maintenance of these works up to the time of this Orderthat is to say, that they are to be charged for all this without having been consulted in any single respect with regard to the improvements in question. Now, Sir, we have heard a good deal about the desirability of local self-government in the Metropolis, and I hope in this division we who are opposed to the Bill will have the support of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. James Stuart), who was so eloquent on this subject on Friday last, because the Vestries at present are the representatives of the ratepayers, and in the present case they were in no way consulted. This Bill, therefore, strikes at the very root of local self-government. The Government, in a highhanded way, decides that certain improvements are necessary; they make them, and then, without having consulted the Vestries, turn round and throw upon the rate payers the expense of maintaining the very strong objection which the rateconsulted on the matter in any way ratepayers take is that they were never whatever. The case of widening Piccadilly is not at all a parallel case with the present, because then the consent of the Vestries was asked, whereas in this instance it was not. Now, with regard to the benefit which it is said these streets were to the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square. The hon. Gentleman representing the Treasury only said that house property was increasing in value. I do not know whether he informed the House that this is absolutely the case; I rather think that the parish is very indirectly benefited, if at all, by these improvements; while as to the charge of maintaining the roads, the difference is, that instead of having to maintain one road they would have to maintain four or five. With regard to the parish of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, it will derive no benefit whatever from the alterations. Well, Sir, with regard to the question of referring this matter to the Metropolitan Board of Works, it seems to me that that Board is not at all a proper Body to refer it to; and I say that if it is to be decided what portion of the Metropolis is to bear the charge, it should be decided by the Government of the day, and not by the Metropolitan Board of Works. I do not wish to detain the House at any great length in explaining the objections to this measure. The fact is, that when these improvements were made the Government of the day made a very gross mistakethey forgot to consult the Vestries. Had they done that they would not have been in the position in which they are now placed, and they would not have been obliged to draw up a measure like this in order to whitewash themselves. At a time when we are talking so much about local self-government, both in and out of the Metropolis, it is, I think, desirable that we should adhere to some of the first principles of local government, and not throw upon the ratepayers of the Metropolis, or any part of it, the expense of maintaining works as to the desirability of which they were not consulted. As to the remark of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leveson Gower) that the district is one of the richest portions of the Metropolis, it would appear that the hon. Gentlemen thinks that rates As soon are only paid by the rich. But I venture | Square, had been consulted. to remind him that that is not so; and as I went into Office, I put myself in the charges that would fall upon the communication with the Representatives parishes for the maintenance of these of those Vestries in this House; and works would have to be defrayed by the although there was considerable willingpoorer classes also; and in the parishes ness to assist the Government in this of St. Martin-in-the-Fields and St. matter, I found afterwards that unless George's, Hanover Square, there are a a Bill was brought in the question would great many poor ratepayers who object never be settled, and that the taxpayers to have these rates forced upon them would go on to the end of time paying against their will. for these roads. The second objection of my noble Friend is, that it is not fair to make these parishes pay for the expense already incurred. Well, I say, Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words " upon this day six months." - (Lord Algernon Percy.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question." MR. PLUNKET: Sir, I am sorry to say that I cannot support the opposition of my noble Friend who objects to this Bill. It was moved originally, not by the late Conservative Government, but by its Predecessor, the former Liberal Government; but when the Marquess of Salisbury's Government came into Office I had the honour for a short time of presiding over the Office of Works. Now, my noble Friend who objects to this Bill does so on three grounds. I shall not trouble the House with any general statement of the purposes of the Bill, because I do not think they need to be, or could be, given more clearly or fully than they have been in the statement which the House has had from the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. But the objections to the Bill, as I understand them, are really threefold. In the first place, it is objected that there was no consultation with the Vestries before these arrangements were made; in the second place, that the parishes are to be charged, not only with the maintenance of the roads in the future, but also with the expense already incurred; and, thirdly, that if any reference is to be made at all, the Metropolitan Board is not the authority to whom this matter should be intrusted, for the purpose of saying how the cost is to be defrayed. Well, Sir, as to the first of these objections, I admit that there was a slip in the proceedings when it was first determined to make these improvements at Hyde Park Corner. It would have been more regular, and have saved all this trouble, if the Vestries of St. Martin-inthe-Fields and St. George's, Hanover Lord Algernon Percy and I wish to be frank, that I think that a very fair matter for discussion by the Select Committee to whom this Bill is to be referred. It is not at all the most material part of it. Though I do not now positively say that these expenses should not be borne by these parishes, as proposed by the Bill, yet I think that is a very fair matter of argument. The third question raised by my noble Friend is, that the Government ought to have undertaken this measure itself, and should not have intrusted it to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Well, if the Government were going to pay the expenses in the future, there might be some ground for that view; but, even so, I do not think the Office of Works is the proper authority for managing these roads. They ought to be managed, as all roads are managed in other parts of the country, by the Vestries and Local Authorities of places through which the roads run. I would submit to the House, that if this Bill is read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, there will be ample opportunity given to thrash out the whole question. By that means the original mistake would be remedied. The parishes would have full opportunity of stating their claims and rights, and when the Bill has been considered by a Select Committee, I have no doubt that the main object of the measure-namely, that the maintenance of the roads should rest with the parishes through which they run, will be adopted by the House. MR. BRUNNER: I desire to ask what is the principle of this Bill? In assenting to the second reading, I understand you assent to the principle. I should like to know whether the putting of this power into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works is the principle of the measure, or whether it is that these parishes and the Metropolitan Board between them should bear the expenses? If it is intended that the management of these roads should be put into the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, I shall be obliged to follow the noble Lord (Lord Algernon Percy), because I look upon it as a religious duty to vote against putting further powers into the hands of that Body. THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): The hon. Gentleman asks what the principle of the Bill is, and I reply to him that it is that the Consolidated Fund should cease to pay charges that properly belong to the ratepayers of London; the principle of the measure is to throw upon the wealthiest city in the world the same burden that falls on Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and other large Provincial towns-the duty of repairing its own streets out of its own rates. I agree with the noble Lord (Lord Algernon Percy) that this is a question of principle and precedent. I think the principle of throwing this burden on the Consolidated Fund is bad, and I think that the precedent which has been set in this case is also bad. I do not wish to detain the House by going into details which have been so fully dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Plunket). This is emphatically a case for the consideration of a Select Committee. The noble Lord referred to the Repayment Clause. That is a clause to enable the Treasury to obtain repayment in regard to the maintenance of the roads since the roads were completed. This is a question we should be quite prepared to accept the decision of the Committee upon when all the facts have been heard. It is a question between two parishes-St. George's, Hanover Square, and St. Martin-in-the-Fields-and, in the absence of a general Local Authority in London, there is no proper authority which can be intrusted with the management of this matter except the Metropolitan Board of Works. I protest, as I have protested on other occasions before I occupied my present Office, against London being placed in a more advantageous position than large Provincial towns in having its improvements carried out at the expense of the taxpayers of the whole country. MR. W. H. SMITH: I do not want to see the improvements of London carried out at the expense of the whole country; but I must say there is another side to this question. Here is a great improvement which the Executive Government have undertaken to carry out without having previously arranged with the Local Authorities the way in which the expenses should be borne. According to the proposal now made, having undertaken these improvements, the Government now desire to throw part of the costs of maintaining them upon a certain parish because a small portion of the improvement happens to be within that parish. The large portion of the costs which will be thrown upon this parish the parish will have no power whatever of recovering from the owners of adjacent property. Under the cir cumstances of the case, however, I think my hon. Friends will be well-advised if they do not oppose the second reading, but reserve their case for the consideration of the Select Committee. There can be no doubt there has been a great deal of blundering in this matter. If the authorities had acted wisely, they would have seen their way clear before undertaking this duty. Question put, and agreed to. Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee. GLEBE LOANS (IRELAND) ACTS [BILL 107.] SECOND READING. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I will not detain the House more than three or four minutes in explaining to it the object of this Bill. In 1870 an Act was passed subsequent to the Irish Church Act called the Glebe Loans (Ireland) Act, 1870. The object of it was to enable the Board of Works, acting on the part of the Treasury, to make loans for the following four purposes:-First of all, for the erection or improvement of dwelling-houses or offices of a glebe; secondly, to purchase glebe land not exceeding 10 acres; thirdly, to purchase dwelling-houses; and, fourthly, to pay off debt incurred in this way. The loans are repayable by half-yearly instalments extending over a period of 35 years-£5 for every £100 advanced. They repay principal and interest at a certain rate over a fixed period. In practice the house and the land descend from one parish priest, or clergyman, or minister to his successor as parish property. The administration of the Act requires the Board of Works to satisfy themselves as to the title to the land, and also as to the solvency of the security offered, and, further, that the premises shall be kept insured, a great deal of work being thus thrown upon the Department. There are three securities required, of whom one must be other than the clergyman who makes the application. The total issue under the Act, as it has been renewed since 1870, has been £371,787. Of that very large sum the amount outstanding on the 29th of January last was no more than £373 08. 10d. By this time, or by the 31st of this month, it is supposed that even that small arrear will have been made still less. The Act of 1870 was limited to expire in five years, and was, unfortunately, so worded as not to be capable of being continued by the annual Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and so it has been re-enacted by successive Governments in 1875, 1878, 1880, and 1883. This last Act, the Act of 1883, expires on the 31st of August next, and what the present Bill proposes to do is to continue the Act for two more years, until the end of 1888-two and a-half years more-and then further to enable it to be continued, as other Acts of a similar kind are continued, in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. These are the two objects of the Bill which I now beg to move be read a second time. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."-(Mr. John Morley.) MR. T. C. HARRINGTON: I would wish, before this Bill is read a second time, to bring to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman a question connected with it which, I think, he himself will see the necessity of considering. Several deputations, representing clergymen of different persuasions and from different parts of Ireland, waited on one of his Predecessors in Office, the present Se Mr. John Morley cretary for Scotland (Mr. Trevelyan), and upon Earl Spencer, complaining that the annual payments were not extended over a longer period of years, and thereby saving or relieving clergymen who had purchased under the Act from the old owners from the very large responsibility cast upon them. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of clergymen purchasing and erecting houses under the Act. Well, these gentlemen complain of the great hardship which is put upon them to have to contribute large repayments during their own life-time, and having to leave to their successors an entirely free residence in their respective parishes. They think it would be far more desirable and convenient— and I would not confine this to any one denomination-to have the period extended over a certain number of year. Several representations of this kind have been made to the Irish Government from time to time. I do not know whether the subject has yet been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary, owing to his having been but a very short time in Office; but now that I have referred to it, I trust he will give it his attention. THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): I understand my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. J. Morley) to say that it is not in our power to alter the Bill. MOTION FOR LEAVE. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer of the Ulster Canal and the Tyrone Navigation or Coal Island Canal from the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland to the Lagan Navigation Company, and for other purposes."-(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.) COLONEL NOLAN: This is a very extraordinary Bill to be brought in by the Government without some consultation with the Irish Members, who have, if I am not mistaken, opposed a similar proposal in two other Sessions of Parlia- | to me that the title of the measure ment. It is not only opposed now by sound like the refrain of a very old song new Irish Members, but by at least that we have heard year after year and three Members of the Commission which seen put off night after night. My sat to consider the subject five years desire in bringing it in so early in the ago-namely, myself, the hon. Member Session was to obtain the judgment of who sat for County Leitrim and who the House upon it, one way or the now sits for an English constituency other, as soon as possible, and finally (Mr. Tottenham), and Mr. Dickson. to dispose of it. If the Members from And I should like to know if Lord Ireland are of opinion that the measure Monteagle approves of the measure, should be referred to a Select Commitbecause formerly he was opposed to its tee, I shall be happy to concur in that principle? I should like to say a few view, and have it carefully considered words in explanation of the measure. in that way; but I must say it has been There is a sheet of water in the North represented to the Government that of Ireland called Lough Neagh, of which there is a strong feeling in favour of the neighbouring farmers complain, as the Bill in the neighbourhood which it injures their farms. Well, the Go- will be affected by it. It is said that vernment propose to hand over a Canal the Bill will operate to the advantage to a Company with £3,000. The offer of the people living on the banks of is a very generous one, and I do not the Canal. The Canal is 40 miles in complain of it; but I complain that in length, and is costing £1,100 a-year, the Bill in which it is proposed to carry whilst earning nothing. It has been out this arrangement, a clause is in- thought that if, by handing it over to serted declaring that Lough Neagh a Navigation Company, it could be should be kept up to its summer level, rendered more useful, it would be well which is its technical Parliamentary to make the experiment. The Governlevel. It is possible by doing this to ment do not propose to give the Cominjure the people in the neighbourhood pany more than £3,000; but if we hand of the Lough to the extent of £100,000 over the Canal, we shall, of course, put or £200,000. I should be perfectly those who receive it under a strict obliready to assent to the Bill, if this clause gation to put it under thorough repair, having reference to the keeping up of and make it efficient for the navigation the level of Lough Neagh were omitted of the district through which it runs. from it. The passing of such a clause, The question is one on which we should besides doing present harm, may do wish the House to be free to express an much injury to those who may want to opinion; and all I would say is that this reduce the level of the Lough at some is hardly the time-before the measure future time. The Ulster Canal is a is printed and is in the hands of hon. valueless concern; but there is another Members-to enter into a discussion of one which is still worse. The Ulster its details. If it is now read a first time, Canal, I believe, is of some little use, I would take care not to put down the though a very little; but if, for the sake second reading at an hour when it of this and the other Canal I mention, would be inconvenient for hon. Gentlethis clause is inserted, whilst doing a men opposite to deal with it. As I have vast deal of harm to the farmers on the said, after the second reading, if it is shores of the Lough, very little good desirable to refer the Bill to a Select will accrue to anybody. As having Committee, I should be glad to assent been a Member of the Commission, and to it. A large portion of the Irish people as never having found any of the Irish say that the measure is one which will Members support the Bill-not even operate greatly to their advantage. I those through whose localities the Canal am not here to say whether they are passes-I conceive it desirable to offer right or wrong; but I think Parliament this protest. I want Her Majesty's Go- should pass judgment on it, so as to disvernment to promise to omit this clause pose of it one way or the other. of which I speak. THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. H. H. FOWLER): It is rather unusual to offer opposition to a Bill of this kind at this stage. It seems MR. JOHNSTON: I hope the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) will see his way to the withdrawal of his opposition to the introduction of the Bill. He takes a deep |