GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. 



351 



Opposition, the chilling announcement that the 

 Liberal party was not bound to give precedence 

 to that policy. A majority of 300 against 43 

 condemned the home-rule amendment, and for 

 the remainder of the session the anti-Parnellite 

 wing of the Irish Nationalists maintained a sullen 

 silence, nor were the other groups much more 

 active, except the individual critics and orators 

 who assailed the foreign and colonial policy of 

 the Government. The prospect of union among 

 the Irish sections seemed farther than ever. The 

 proposal to introduce automatic couplings on 

 British railroads, urged by Mr. Madison, was at 

 first accepted by the President of the Board of 

 Trade, who was willing to introduce a bill on 

 the subject; but experts criticised the measure so 

 severely that it was withdrawn, in order that a 

 thorough inquiry might be instituted. 



In debating the heavy supplementary estimates 

 for naval and military purposes, the Opposition 

 censured the employment of the army in South 

 Africa, Uganda, and the Soudan, and the raising 

 of money to build defensive works by loans. Sir 

 Henry Fowler, who conducted the budget debate 

 for the Opposition, was defeated on his motion 

 to reject the budget by 280 votes against 155. 

 The Chancellor of the Exchequer had strong sup- 

 port for his reduction of the sinking fund from 

 financiers who deprecated a too rapid redemp- 

 tion of the public debt, apart from the exigencies 

 of the budget. The increase of the wine duties, 

 however, excited so much resentment in France 

 and Spain, and especially in Australia, where the 

 infant wine industry would be strangled unless 

 colonial wines were excepted, that the Chancellor 

 of the Exchequer consented to a considerable 

 mitigation in the pressure of the new duties, seek- 

 ing a partial indemnification in a surtax on spirits 

 imported in bottles. 



The London government bill aimed at sup- 

 planting or curbing the power of the London 

 County Council, often obnoxious and hostile to 

 the party in power, by creating subordinate 

 municipalities, generally corresponding to those 

 existing in provincial towns, with wider powers 

 than those committed to the existing vestries and 

 district boards. The city of London was left 

 untouched. The authority of the London County 

 Council was not directly interfered with, yet it 

 was provided that there might be a transfer of 

 power to the new bodies or from them to the 

 council. The areas to be incorporated were in 

 the main those recognized in existing divisions, 

 though some were left to be delimited by bound- 

 ary commissioners. Westminster, enlarged so as 

 to embrace the whole of the old parliamentary 

 city, was placed apart in an independent posi- 

 tion. The limits of the boroughs were to range 

 between a population of 100,000 or a ratable 

 value of 500,000 and a maximum population of 

 400,000. In the metropolis the opposition to the 

 measure was intense, not only from the Radicals, 

 who sustain and control the county council, but 

 from the classes that have been influential in 

 the vestries. In the House of Commons, however, 

 no effective resistance could be made to the bill, 

 which was piloted through by Mr. Balfour. Her- 

 bert Gladstone was supported by Mr. Asquith in 

 opposing the second reading, but only with re- 

 serve by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and his 

 amendment was lost by 245 votes against 118. 

 In the committee of the whole Sir Lawson Walton 

 could only muster 49 votes in support of his 

 proposal to divide the greater Westminster into 

 two boroughs. On minor issues the Government 

 made concessions. Changes were made in the 

 areas of the boroughs, and the new bodies were 



given the option of having annual or triennial 

 elections. On both sides of the house, and espe- 

 cially on the Liberal side, members advocated the 

 principle of making women eligible to municipal 

 offices, and the Government agreed to leave this 

 an open question, for the ministers themselves 

 were divided in opinion, Mr. Balfour, in fact, being 

 in favor of the admission of women, as well as 

 the Prime Minister. When a motion was made 

 that neither sex nor marriage should act as a 

 disqualification, it was decided by 179 votes to 

 77 that women should not be eligible to the office 

 of mayor, but might be elected councilors or 

 aldermen. Another amendment was voted imme- 

 diately afterward, by 155 votes against 124, to 

 alter this decision by excluding them from the 

 aldermanship ; but this was reversed later when, 

 on the motion of Mr. Courtney, the provision 

 was restored, by 196 votes to 161, allowing women 

 to hold the office either of councilor or alder- 

 man. In the House of Lords, however, on the 

 motion of Lord Dunraven, against which the 

 Marquis of Salisbury made a strong plea, while 

 the Earl of Halsbury and the Duke of Devon- 

 shire opposed his views with equal warmth, the 

 exclusion of women from all the offices was voted 

 by a majority of 182 against 68, although by 

 existing statutes women had the right to sit on 

 the London vestries. When the amendment of 

 the Lords was considered in the lower house Mr. 

 Courtney endeavored to retain the right of 

 women to sit as councilors, giving up their claim 

 to be admitted to the mayoralty or alderman- 

 ship; but Mr. Balfour announced the decision 

 of the Government not to enter into a conflict 

 with the House of Lords on this issue, and he 

 was supported by a majority of 246 votes to 177. 

 The act makes no immediate inroad into the 

 authority or position of the central governing 

 body. The existing local administrative bodies, 

 such as vestries, boards, trustees, and commis- 

 sioners, having ill-defined functions and areas of 

 jurisdiction varying greatly in size, are all swept 

 away at once, their place being taken by the 

 borough councils, consisting of the mayors, alder- 

 men, and councilors of the boroughs into which 

 the whole of the metropolitan area, exclusive of 

 the city of London, is divided. These councils 

 will be intrusted immediately with the municipal 

 and sanitary work hitherto performed by those 

 in co-ordinate local authorities, and it is hoped 

 that enough dignity and honor will attach to the 

 new offices to attract men of a higher class than 

 those who have usually sat on the vestries. One 

 of the duties transferred to the councils is that 

 of maintaining the streets, but with police, gas, 

 and water they have nothing to do. 



Measures not in the ministerial programme 

 were introduced at various periods of the ses- 

 sion, some of them very late. The Niger Com- 

 pany bill, the colonial loans bill, and the tele- 

 phone bill were among the most important; but 

 the chief of these, taking rank only after the 

 London government bill in the business of the 

 session, was the tithe-rent-charge rating bill, 

 which was brought in early. Although the Gov- 

 ernment had made promises to the clergy to bring 

 in a measure to relieve them from the unequal 

 system of rating, the bill was not mentioned in 

 the Queen's speech for the reason, as alleged, 

 that it was desirable to deal with the subject in 

 connection with the budget. No provisions were 

 made in the budget, however, for the promised 

 relief. It was not until June 22 that a bill was 

 laid before the house for the discharge out of 

 the annuallv increasing imperial contribution to 

 the local taxation account of half the rates pay- 



