Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/66

 58] ENGLISH HISTOEY. [march

the other hand, was of opinion that the Westminster munici- pality ought to be divided into two or three districts. Sir J. Lubbock (London University), a City banker, as well as an economist of repute, maintained that the absorption of the Corporation in the County Council was not practicable, and if a. change were effected the metropolis as a whole would lose financially. Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, in closing the debate for the Opposition, said he would not join in any attack on the City. The bill would, he thought, effect division and not com- bination and concentration, and he was afraid that one result of it would be that the poor would be stinted in necessary public services. Local bodies for administrative purposes were neces- sary and useful, but as municipal bodies they were wrong in theory and confusing. Mr. Balfour, on behalf of the Govern- ment, upheld the rights of the City against absorption by the County Council. Defending the principle underlying the financial provisions of the measure, he said he believed the normal course would be for the new boroughs to borrow through the County Council. At the same time it was undesirable that, the new municipalities should be prevented from borrowing for themselves in cases of necessity ; but as to the details of the financial provisions he was quite ready to entertain amendments. Against the equalisation of rates the Government had no preju- dice, and he cited figures to prove that the principle would not in any way be violated by the scheme of the Government. With respect to the complaint that the Government were creating cities of the rich as against cities of the poor, Mr. Balfour pointed out that the London County Council had itself approved thirteen out of the fifteen areas scheduled. Generally the* plan of the Government was the plan foreshadowed by Lord Kosebery in 1895. " Although we believe that London should be one, we believe that unity will best be obtained, will best be strengthened, by maintaining local spirit, by encouraging local spirit, by developing local spirit. We desire to see London a unity, but not London a unit.'' Mr. H. Gladstone's amendment was then negatived by 245 to 118, and the bill read a second time ; the Opposition deciding to reserve their objections until the committee stage, and not many days elapsed before the order book bore evidence of their determination to mould the bill into a very different shape to that designed by its authors.

All this time, however, foreign policy alone seemed to be interesting Parliament, the Press and the people, and when there were no troubles abroad of our own to occupy attention, those of our neighbours — especially when disastrous — afforded keen enjoyment. The Opposition in both Houses were fully aware of the prevailing tone, and consequently questions and motions on foreign affairs became more than usually frequent,, as the references made to China, the Soudan and Muscat have already shown. Externally, however, our relations with both