Page:The Annual Register 1899.djvu/99

 1899.] Government of London Bill. [91

have a population of between 100,000 and 400,000, or a rate- able value of 500,000Z. (April 25). Clause 2 (constitution of Borough Councils), raised the sex question, which was debated with great vehemence and at great length. Having decided by 245 to 140 that the new bodies should consist of mayors, alder- men and councillors, Mr. Boulnois (Marylebone, E.), proposed that no women should be eligible for either category, but this was negatived by 127 to 101 votes. Mr. T. H. Kobertson (Hackney, S.), then proposed that only the office of mayor should be placed outside the reach of the ladies, and this was agreed to by 179 to 77 votes. The House then put itself into a ridiculous position by passing by 155 to 124 votes, on the motion of Mr. Webster (St. Pancras, E.), an amendment excluding women from the office of alderman. This led to a hopeless tangle of amendments, and in the end it was agreed that the whole matter should be reconsidered, and in like manner Mr. Buxton's (Poplar), proposed substitution of triennial for annual elections was adjourned. Subsequently when the matter was rediscussed (May 4), Mr Balfour, after much pressure from the metro- politan members, agreed that any municipality might, if it wished, adopt the triennial system. This decision was subse- quently modified (May 8), and it was decided that the Local Government Board might, under certain conditions, make an order directing all councillors of a borough to be elected triennially. The maximum number of councillors for any borough was fixed at seventy and the aldermen, not necessarily to be chosen from among the councillors, at one-sixth of their number. An attempt to relax the residence qualification of councillors and aldermen was strongly resisted by metropolitan members of all shades of opinion, a very strong protest being raised by them against"carpet-baggers'" and "political bounders". Sir Charles Dilke (Forest of Dean), whose previous experience as a metropolitan member gave authority to his views, was desirous that the borrowing powers of the new "councils should be absolutely controlled by the London County Council instead of by the Local Government Board, but Mr. Balfour would only consent to the appeal to the latter being final, in cases where the London County Council had refused its consent to a proposed loan.

On the question of the transfer of powers actually exercised by the London County Council to the new Borough Councils, Mr. Balfour was more pliable (May 9) ; accepting a clause which permitted the voluntary interchange of powers between the two authorities, subject only to the approval of the Local Government Board. He also withdrew the clause (6) delimit- ing the respective powers of the old and new authorities under the Building Acts, but resisted all attempts by the Badical mem- bers to withhold and limit the new councils' power to promote bills in Parliament After a prolonged discussion, and in view of the unanimity of the London members, Mr. Balfour con-