LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)

HC Deb 04 December 1893 vol 19 cc374-459

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st December.]

TWELFTH NIGHT.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 10 (Restrictions on expenditure by Parish Council.)

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said, he wished to move an Amendment to insure that the incidence of the rates laid down in the adoptive Acts should be maintained if the Acts were put in force by the Parish Council. He need not detain the Committee by enumerating the details of the incidence, but he would remind it that agricultural land was entitled to a considerable exemption as compared with other property. It might be said, perhaps, that Sub-section 5 of Clause 7 fully met the case, and if the President of the Local Government Board could give him an assurance to that effect he would not press the Amendment, which, however, was an important one to all concerned in agricultural land. He would be glad if it could be accepted: it could do no harm even if it were not actually necessary.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 39, after the words "this Act," to insert the words "and the adoptive Acts."—(Mr. Rankin.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.)

This question has already been dealt with in the 7th clause, which does not touch these provisions in the adoptive Acts. We have no doubt upon the point that the object of the Amendment is fully secured.

MR. RANKIN

Upon that assurance I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 8. line 40, after the word "Council," to insert the words "and of a parish meeting.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

I beg to move— In page 8, line 40, after the word "Council," to insert the words "including the expenses of any poll consequent on a parish meeting.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, this had been provided for in an earlier clause.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

Clause 2 does not finally settle the matter. The expenses were to be paid as hereinafter to be provided.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

agreed to accept the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, they had had a distinct declaration from the Solicitor General the other day that the poll was part of the parish meeting, and was merely a continuation of it. Was it, therefore, really necessary to insert these words?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not think it is. There is a doubt about it, however, and it can do no harm to insert it.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.) rose to move the following Amendment:— In page 8, line 40, to leave, out from the word "of," to end of Clause, and insert "a separate rate, to be called 'the parish rate,' such rate to be assessed and levied as hereinafter provided, and not to be chargeable to owners as such instead of occupiers, under the provisions of Section 4 of 'The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' or under any other statutory enactment.

He said, that in the earlier portion of the Debate there was some little dis- cussion as to whether the expenses of the parish meeting were to come out of the poor rate or not, and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, in order to leave the question open, agreed to words to the effect that the expenses should be defrayed as "hereinafter provided," therefore it was quite open to the Committee to consider whether the expenses of the parish meeting and Council were to come out of the poor rate or were to be provided for by a separate and distinct rate, or in any other way. This Amendment proposed two things: It provided that the expenses of the Parish Council should be provided for by a separate rate to be called the parish rate, and that it should not be compulsorily chargeable to the owners as owners, instead of occupiers, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, or under any other statutory enactment. It, therefore, proposed to abolish compounding with regard to this special rate. With reference to the first proposition, that the expenses should be provided for by a separate rate, the principle of distinguishing the expenses of the Parish Council had, to a certain extent, been conceded by the right hon. Gentleman, because in an Amendment he had put on the Paper he proposed that in the demand note for the rate to defray the expenses of the Parish Council or parish meeting it should be stated what proportion of the poor rate was to be levied for this purpose. The question, therefore, was whether that principle was sufficiently carried out by what the right hon. Gentleman intended to propose? He could not help thinking it was not. There was a great deal of difference between stating in a precept that a portion of the rate was levied for a particular purpose and levying a distinct and separate rate. In the one case the matter was not distinctly and clearly brought to the attention of the ratepayer, and in the other it was so brought to the ratepayer's attention, and he knew what he was asked to pay and the purpose for which he was asked to pay the money. In most of the Metropolitan parishes there were several rates levied. There was the poor rate for Poor Law purposes and charges payable out of the poor rate; there were some special rates; there was the lighting rate and there was the general rate for the general purposes of the Local Authority, and these were all made as separate and distinct rates, so that the ratepayer knew how much he was charged for each particular rate. Although they were made as separate and distinct rates, there was no additional expense caused in the levying of them, because they were levied at the same time by the same collecting authority; they were on the same paper, and were paid, in fact, into the same banking account, but they were kept separate and distinct in all the parish accounts. These rates were dealt with separately in the parish books, the payments were made out of them separately, the ratepayer knew how much he paid in respect of each, and saw how the money was expended. There was no reason why what was perfectly practicable in London with the various rates should not be equally capable of being carried out in the country districts, and why the Rate Collecting Authority there should not quite as easily levy this separate parish rate when it levied the poor rate and the highway rate, and why there should be any additional expense whatever. There was the enormous advantage in keeping the rate separate and perfectly distinct that the ratepayer would have clearly brought to his knowledge how much he was charged for the purposes of the Parish Council; he would be able to trace the amount in the parish accounts, see how the money was spent, and the assessment and levying of the expenditure would be ever present to his mind in connection with the work of the Parish Council. He ventured to say these enormous advantages, working all on the side of careful administration and economy, were so desirable that it was of the greatest possible importance that the change which he advocated should be made. He knew it had been suggested, as a matter of convenience, that it was desirable to put this charge in the poor rate. But the poor rate was overloaded with all sorts of charges; a great part of the poor rate was levied for purposes other than poor relief; and so far from adding to these items in the poor rate, he could not help thinking the time had almost arrived when the charges for poor relief should be separated from those other charges, and these others kept separate and distinct. He proposed, in reference to this rate, that it should not be subject to compounding. That proposition raised a very large question, in which very many considerations were involved. He would not do more than remind the House of the circumstances under which the Act of 1869, which established the present system of compounding, was passed. When the Reform Act of 1867 was passed compounding was abolished, but for the purposes of collection that was found to be exceedingly inconvenient in places like Birmingham and the East End of London. There was considerable discussion on the subject, and in 1869 this Act of Parliament which reestablished the system of compounding was passed. It was passed, as a matter of fact, for the convenience of the collection of rates from very small occupiers in large and populous places where there was a very great number of small ratepayers. It was felt that in such places the old system of compounding had worked to the convenience of the tax collectors, and, to some extent, of the smaller ratepayers, and accordingly compounding was re-established. But the reasons for compounding which were applicable to places like Birmingham and the East End of London hardly applied to the special circumstances connected with the levying and collection of the rates in a purely rural district. He wished to draw a distinction between the collection of rates in a population such as that of the East End of London, Birmingham, and other crowded places, where removals were frequent, and it was very difficult to follow people and collect the rates, and in country districts, where there was not that change of residence among the agricultural population, and where there were none of the difficulties in collecting the rate directly from the occupier. The purpose for which this rate was levied was a purpose directly interesting to the poorer class of the ratepayers. The smaller ratepayers would largely out-number the other ratepayers; they would, in fact, dominate the parish vote, and it was most desirable that they should appreciate the effect of the rates in having themselves directly to contribute towards them. It was perfectly true that in their rent they did contribute to the rates. Nothing was clearer economically than the proposition that the poorer ratepayer, whose rates were paid for him by his landlord under the compounding system, paid in his rent a proportion of the rates. But, unfortunately, he did not realise or quite appreciate that payment, and in the case of large numbers of cottages the lettings were not lettings in which the rates were considered at all. The rents paid for cottages were not what might be called economic rents, but they were rents very much below the full value of the cottages, and the rates hardly entered into the landlord's consideration in fixing the rents. At all events, whether the occupier paid his rates in his rent or not, the expenditure that was proposed to be incurred in connection with these Parish Councils would be almost prepondera tingly for the benefit of the smaller classes of ratepayers in the parish, and it was most desirable that they should understand, in voting for any raising of rates, that they were voting moneys which, to a certain extent, however small, came out of their own pockets. The Act of Parliament of 1869 provided that where the occupiers occupied for a term of less than three months they might deduct their rates from the rents they paid to their landlords; therefore, there would be no hardship upon the weekly or monthly tenant who had taken his house free of rates and who was called upon to pay this rate, because he would afterwards be able to deduct the rate from the rent. The fact that he contributed to the rates would very clearly be brought to his knowledge by the tax collector calling upon him in the first instance for the rate, by his having to pay it, and having afterwards to get it allowed to him from the rent he had to pay to the landlord. When he occupied for a longer period than three months the matter would have to be adjusted by agreement between the parties; and this would involve very little practical difficulty. It was perfectly clear that it would be an enormous advantage, from an economic point of view, that the occupier who went to the Vestry and voted and interfered in parish affairs should directly pay the rates instead of indirectly paying them. It might be that the amount he would have to pay would not be large; but he would have to pay his fair share, and he would understand this when he was going to vote in connection with the parish. The rate in the country districts would be an appreciable rate, because it was now admitted that the 1d. limit was a limit rather of imagination than of fact, and that it might approach in many cases something like 6d. in the £1. On cottages rated at £4 a year that would be 2s. a year, which, though not a great deal, was something, and the fact that a man contributed to the rates even this 2s. a year would make him appreciate the importance of exercising economy in connection with administering the affairs of the parish. As he had said, the only reason for compounding was the matter of convenience in the collection.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

It is a saving of money.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

doubted that very much. His own opinion was, that the allowance of 30 per cent.—15 per cent. for the trouble and 15 per cent. for the loss, where the landlord agreed to pay, whether the house was empty or not—was a very full allowance indeed, and more than covered all the trouble and any loss through empties. He could not help thinking that the parish really lost, and the other ratepayers suffered by this compounding of the rates. At all events, compounding was not universal. There were districts in England where compounding was not put in force, and where the people were quite satisfied that they would lose under the system of compounding. He denied altogether that a rural population was at all to be compared with a town population. The population in tenement houses in crowded towns was continuously changing, whereas the population in the rural districts changed very little, the same man occupying the same cottage year after year. Where, therefore, the system of compounding was convenient and perhaps necessary was where there was a crowded, shifting, changing, population that could not be followed; but it was unnecessary in the case of a population like that in a rural parish where there was not that shifting and changing of the occupiers. He believed the parish would be a gainer by the abolition of the system of compounding; and when they were making the great experiment of handing over the affairs of the parish almost entirely into the hands of the more numerous and poorer ratepayers, it was most essential that not merely a limit to possible expenditure should be put, but that the ratepayers should have brought to them in the most forcible way the fact that they contributed themselves towards the expenditure which they had to vote for. He did not know how it was possible in any other way to ensure economy in these Parochial Bodies. The right hon. Gentleman had agreed to put the limit of expenditure at 6d., but that was a limit it would be very difficult to adhere to. He was not at all sure that before long they would not have some proposition to increase this limit, the growing requirements of the parish necessitating increased expenses. He doubted very much, therefore, whether this 6d. limit could be relied upon as a permanent check. There were other checks with reference to the adoptive Acts, and so on, but there could be no check like that which would be created by the knowledge clearly in a man's mind when he was voting money for public purposes that he himself would have to contribute his fair share and that, the rate collector would visit him as well as his neighbours. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 40, to leave out from the word "of," to the end of the Clause, and add the words "a separate rate, to be called 'the parish rate,' such rate to be assessed and levied as hereinafter provided, and not to be chargeable to owners as such instead of occupiers, under the previsions of Section 4 of 'The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' or under any other statutory enactment."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the poor rate and the Parish Council, stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Amendment of my hon. Friend raises two questions: First, he proposes that the Parish Council shall levy a separate rate with separate provision for the assessment and collection, and then that the rate so levied shall not be subject to the compounding clause. Now, Sir, we have had the question about the separate rate raised once before; I cannot for the moment recollect in what Amendment, but the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet laid great stress upon there being a statement upon the demand note, and I promised to incorporate that in an Amendment which I have since put down. My hon. Friend who has just sat down seems to think that a desirable object for local taxation reformers is to have as many rates as possible. Well, Sir, that has not been the prevailing opinion for many years past. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, in his Bill of 1870—

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I beg pardon; I did not say it was desirable to have as many rates as possible.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Member argued in favour of a multiplication and not a consolidation of rates.. The Bill of 1870 proposed there should be one consolidated rate levied in every parish. In my own mind I think that it would be an ideal system that there-should be one rate levied, and it should be distinctly stated what it should be. But that cannot be introduced into the Bill, and we do not think it desirable to introduce in the Bill all the machinery for collecting the rate, which the House fixed at a limit of 6d. to cover everything, but which I am of opinion is not likely in ordinary cases to amount to 6d. Now, Sir, the real gist of the Amendment is not a separate rate, but compounding. My hon. Friend seems to think that compounding is confined to towns. That is not so. The Act which was passed in 1850—that is 20 years before the Act of 1869—was in reference to the small tenement rates. That Act recites that the collection of the poor and highway rates assessed upon occupiers of tenements of small annual value was expensive, difficult, and frequently impracticable, and it was expedient to make better provision for the rating of such tenements and the collection of such rates. That Preamble was followed by enactments which allowed certain deductions. I only refer to that Act—which has been repealed— in order to show that forty years ago the Legislature was aware of this difficulty, and under the Act of 1869 this allowance of 15 per cent. is allowed as insurance for payment, and the additional allowance of 15 per cent. is allowed in consideration of the rates being paid whether the premises are empty or not. The landlord does not get the second allowance unless he agrees to make that payment. The hon. Member seems to think that this system is a failure, and that it is an undesirable practice to adopt, but all that he can urge against it is that it is not universal. All the Rating and Collecting Authorities are in favour of it. The Legislature in 1867 did abolish compounding, and made the tenant pay his own rate; but so general was the feeling in favour of compounding that a Bill was obliged to be introduced in 1869 to revert to it again. The right hon. Member for Bristol the other night corrected me for saying that the Act of 1869 was unanimously passed, intimating that he himself opposed it; but, on referring to Hansard, I find that the right hon. Gentleman did not divide the House upon the question, so that there was practically a unanimous decision of the House to revert to the practice of compounding. Well, Sir, there is a great deal to be said on both sides with regard to compounding. There is the question of bringing home to the householder the fact that he pays the rate. You cannot, however, abolish compounding with regard to one rate and leave it in existence with regard to the others. What will this parish rate be in proportion to the rates that are paid in any district at the present time? The poor rate forms the largest of any of our items of taxation, but it would not be touched by this Amendment. You would find it very difficult also to abolish compounding in the country and to leave it in existence in the towns. You could not abolish it in the towns. My hon. Friend very carefully guarded himself on that point. He knows that the system he advocates would not be practicable in London, and his friends will tell him that it would not be practicable in Liverpool, or Birmingham, or other large towns. I would, once for all, enter my respectful protest against the theory that Parish Councils, because they will perhaps be constituted of the peasant class, will be guilty of unusual and unprecedented extravagance in regard to parochial expenditure. Such a theory is not in accordance with the experience hitherto available. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings) said the other night that the most economical class of electors in Birmingham was the compounding class. I believe that the interests not only of the landlord, but of the tenants, the squires, the farmers, and the agricultural labourers will be consolidated together on one common platform in endeavouring to secure the good government of the parish. On economical grounds I think the change proposed would be unwise; and for this and other reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman altogether on the reasons he has advanced for refusing to accept the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that one weighty reason why he cannot accept the proposal is that it would be impossible to carry it out in the urban districts. If we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman one thing above all others in these discussions it is that this is to be a Bill that is to apply to the rural districts, and to them alone, and that, therefore, it is to be based on totally different lines from those of the legislation affecting urban districts. We do not propose that this change should be made in the rating of the urban districts also, and I do not think there is any parallel to be drawn between the incidence of the rates in the rural and urban districts respectively. It is not necessary for us now to discuss whether the householder in the town pays the rate. It is sufficient for us that he pays the rent he can afford to pay, and that the owner of the house gets the best rent he thinks he can command. This Amendment is not proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite or supported by us because we want to throw upon cottagers burdens hitherto borne by landowners, nor because we think the Parish Council will be necessarily extravagant, but simply because the Bill will confer on the occupants of cottages the responsibility of governing their parish and the duty of electing the authority which will in future incur parish expenditure, and we believe it is only right and proper that they should be placed in such a position that they will be able to realise what their parish government costs them. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the hon. Gentleman opposite was departing from the line hitherto adopted by all local government reformers, which, he said, had always been in the direction of the consolidation of rates. The right hon. Gentleman has fallen into a mistake there. The line which re- formers have taken hitherto has been not in the direction of the consolidation of rates, but in the direction of the consolidation of the Rating Authority. What they have advocated hitherto is that, whereas you had your Burial Boards, your School Boards, and your Vestries rating your parishes, these various authorities should be replaced by one authority. The object of this proposal is not to secure a multiplication of rates, but to provide that when a ratepayer pays the rate he shall know whether he is paying for parochial expenditure or for other purposes. I really believe the right hon. Gentleman would be doing a good turn to his Bill if he could see his way to accept the Amendment either in its present or, if necessary, in some altered form. I am sure the hon. Gentleman opposite does not bind himself to the form of the Amendment. What we want is to get the principle recognised of responsibility on the part of those who are going to elect these Parish Authorities and to make it clear that the ratepayer, whether he is a compounder or a non-compounder, should know what proportion of the rate he pays goes towards parochial expenditure. We know perfectly well that many of the ratepayers do not take the trouble to examine their demand notes. In many rural villages the rates are paid now by the occupiers, and, as far as I know, no difficulty whatever is experienced as a result of their paying them. One of the difficulties connected with the compounding system in towns is due to the large number of changes and removals that take place; and another difficulty is that many of the occupants of small houses are absent from their homes during the greater part of the day, so that it is difficult to recover the rates from them. Such is not the case in the villages, where the housewife is generally at home to see visitors and pays the bills and everything else. There would, I believe, be no practical difficulty whatever. The hardship that will be incurred under the Act of 1869 will be that, if the Vestry has passed a resolution in favour of compounding, the owners will be compelled to pay on the compounding principle in future. The result of adopting the Amendment would not be to multiply rates, but merely to lay on tenants the responsibility of paying rates due to the action of those they elect to represent them in the Parish Council, and to bring home to them the fact that they are responsible for the expenditure of the parish. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may yet see his way to reconsider his determination. I am convinced that the adoption of the Amendment would not lead to extravagance and waste, whilst it would lead to a recognition by the occupants of cottages of the great responsibility that is now to be placed upon them.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)

I will not say anything of the motives with which this Amendment has been proposed; but this I will say: that if it be adopted it will be the most deadly blow yet aimed at the operation of the Parish Councils Bill. The hon. Member who has just sat down was, I think, mistaken when he said, in correction of a statement made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler), that all the reformers of local taxation had aimed at was not the consolidation of the rates, but the unification of the authority. That was certainly not the view of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) in his well-known work on this subject. He says— We propose, for example, that the Boards of Guardians, the Highway Boards, the County Justices, the Local Boards, the Town Councils, and all the Bodies which have a claim on a particular parish, shall each, on a particular day in the year, send in an estimate of the particular amount they will require in the course of that year. The parish officers will add all these together, and will probably be able to make an estimate of the total sum which will be required from the parish during the whole of the year. A demand note will be sent to the ratepayer specifying all the items of which the rate is composed. Well, that is the present system, which we propose to continue. The Amendment is that every ratepayer shall be made acquainted with the amount of the parish rate as distinct from the amount of all other rates, so that everybody shall know how much he is charged in respect of the parish rate. Then we come to the question of the abolition of compounding. That is the part of the proposal which I venture to say will in its results be absolutely fatal to the operation of this Bill. In 1867 a great battle was fought upon the principle that no man ought to exercise influence, Parliamentary or otherwise, unless he directly paid the rates and was thus made, as the hon. Member (Mr. T. H. Bolton) says, to appreciate his position. That principle was afterwards deliberately overthrown, and it was held that men were not incapable of taking part in Parliamentary and municipal affairs, though the incidence of the rates did not fall directly upon them. The argument was a very plain one. Practical convenience was in favour of compounding. Parishes had found that they collected rates more easily and more economically under the system of compounding. The hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) says that system is not more economical, but, if so, it is a very remarkable thing that everybody should adopt it. Really, the argument in favour of compounding came out of the mouth of the hon. Member himself when he said he did not advocate the abolition of compounding in crowded districts. I venture to say that St. Pancras would express a very clear opinion upon this Amendment if it were made applicable to that parish. He says things are quite different in country districts. Why are they different? In my opinion, there is no difference at all; but if there be a difference, it is more in favour of abolishing compounding in towns than in the country. He says the compounding element is more preponderant in the country than in the towns. Is that so? I think that the compounding element is quite as preponderant, or more preponderant, in the towns than in the country. The supporters of the Amendment say that these poor men in towns whose rates are compounded for the convenience of the towns are not to be disfranchised or deprived of their votes in the expenditure of the County Councils or other bodies, who spend far more money than you are contemplating here. I would ask gentlemen opposite whether those who do not pay the rates ought, in their opinion, to have a vote? [Opposisition cries of "Yes!"] If so, what is the object of the Amendment? If a man is to vote, although he does not pay the rates, I do not see what is to be gained by the Amendment. The whole argument has been that no man shall vote for the expenditure who does not directly pay the rates.

MR. W. LONG

There is nothing in the Amendment to interfere with volun- tary arrangement. It is only where the compulsory powers of the Act of 1869 are brought into play that it is proposed to do away with compounding. There is no question of interfering with voluntary compounding.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Then what becomes of the whole argument in the case of voluntary compounding? Those who do not pay the rates are, if they have compounded voluntarily, to determine the expenditure. That cuts at the root of the whole argument, that a man must pay the rates directly or else be deprived of his vote. I say that the argument is just as good in the one case as in. the other. The consequence of adopting this Amendment would be that the rate collector would go round and collect sixpences and shillings from all those cottages from which he did not collect before. One of the pains and penalties of this Bill would, therefore, be that the rate collector would be inflicted upon the cottager. If you can hold this in terrorem over those cottagers who have not hitherto been visited by the rate collector, they will take very good care that the Parish Councils Bill shall become a dead letter, and those who desire to discredit this Bill will have achieved the object they have in view. I cannot conceive anything that will make the Bill more odious to the poor rural householder than the statement that it will make him personally rateable. It would create a sort of weight against the Bill in every rural parish, and I venture to say that to support this Amendment will be to commit an act—I do not say an intentional act—of absolute hostility to the Bill. The sending of the rate collector to the door of a man who never had to pay rates directly before would make the measure extremely odious and unpopular, and would make many desirous of getting rid of the Bill altogether. The agricultural labourer would dislike and hate the Bill which inflicted such a state of things upon him. Now, let us look at the question from the point of view of the parish itself. You have to collect a small sum of money. How is it to be collected? The rate collector will have to go for a few pence to every door where he did not go before. You say that the occupier can deduct the amount from the landlord's rent. Everybody who has lived in a country village will know that that would be the most odious and impracticable thing you could ever inflict upon a country population. I say that to destroy the present convenient system for the purpose of inflicting on the agricultural labourer the personal payment of the rate would be extremely unfair and extremely unpopular, and I am quite certain that it would do more to injure the Bill than anything else could possibly do. The parish would lose by such an arrangement, because in a great number of cases the men would not have the means to pay. As for going to their doors and telling them they must deduct the amount from the rent, that would not, in my opinion, be consistent with the habits of rural life, and would damage and practically defeat the whole proposals of the Bill.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)

I can see from the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he has not given much previous attention to this subject. His contention is that the effects of adopting the Amendment would be absolutely to destroy the Bill—to make its operation most unpopular in the country, and to ruin parishes by preventing the proper collection of rates. I desire in a very few sentences to examine that contention. Why would it make this Bill unpopular with the cottager? 1s it because he would know, if he paid his rates directly, how much the Bill cost the ratepayers? Is it because, if he knew that, it would disappoint the expectation which has studiously been instilled into his mind that Parish Councils and their expenditure are things which other people are to pay for?

SIR W. HARCOURT

What I said was that he would be called upon to pay a rate he never paid before. He now only pays his rent, and you want to call upon him to pay a rate.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

But you cannot institute this great reform without putting the parish to some cost. That cost must come out of a rate. That rate involves a levy to which the parish has not hitherto been accustomed. Why should it not be levied directly, so that everybody would know what it was? There can be no other reason than that the right hon. Gentleman desires to see the cost come out of other persons' pockets—in fact, that one set of persons shall pay and another set of persons shall rule. If he really desires that those who rule shall pay, and contends that they will pay indirectly through the rent, what does the right hon. Gentle-man's contention amount to? Anybody who is acquainted with the rents usually charged in rural parishes will certainly admit that, as a rule, it will he perfectly possible, when this new rate is imposed, for the owners to recoup themselves, and far more than recoup themselves, for any extra burdens which might be imposed upon them by means of the compounded rate by raising the rents of their cottages. The effect of the refusal of the Committee to adopt this Amendment will simply be not that the cottager will gain, but that he will lose, because I fear that the owners of cottage property—or at least the small owners who find that they are compelled to compound for this new rate—will certainly raise their rents to an extent far beyond the amount of the new rate. I think, therefore, that the refusal of the Amendment will be far more likely to make the Bill unpopular than its acceptance would be. The right hon. Gentleman further contends that the abolition of compulsory compounding would result in grave loss to the parishes, because these small rates would not, in his opinion, be collected. Well, I think the Committee has grave reason to complain of the action of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Only a few weeks ago, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) is well aware, a very full Return was laid on the Table on the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) showing as regards Scotland the precise incidence of the poor rates, stating how many persons are rated above and below certain limits, how many are liable for their own rates, and in how many cases the rates are paid by the owners, so that anyone can easily see what effect any change in rating would have on the payment of rates or the liability to pay them in Scotland. We have no information whatever of the kind with reference to England and Wales. We ought to have had it before we were asked to discuss a Bill proposing a rate of 6d. in the £1 and making other changes of great importance in the management and control of our Poor Law system. We know nothing, and the right hon. Gentleman knows nothing, of the extent to which the rates are paid by the cottagers, or to which they are compounded for by the owners in England and Wales. There are many rural parishes in which compounding has never existed, the rates being paid by the occupier of every tenement, however small; and I am confident, from what I can recollect of the inquiry which was held by a Select Committee of this House in 1868 into the economic effect of the abolition of the compounding, that a larger proportion of the rates are collected in such parishes than in those which have adopted the system of compounding. I maintain, in direct opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, that the cottager will lose by the increase of his rent if you insist on the owner compounding, and I maintain that the Parish Council will lose also. I know myself two or three cases of country parishes, differing from no other country parish in which compounding had been the rule, in which the owners of the cottages considered that it was better that the occupiers should in future pay the rates, and in which the change was made without any loss whatever in the collection of the rates. I hope that the Committee may give a favourable consideration to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras. I am aware that there are objections to levying a parish rate instead of having a consolidated rate for all purposes. But we have already met with very grave difficulties in attempting to raise that question on this Bill with regard to the poor rate, which, of course, for many reasons is a far more important rate than the Parish Council rate is ever likely to be. Therefore, I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Pancras has taken this opportunity of bringing the matter before the Committee, and I hope he will press his Amendment to a Division.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, he wished to discuss the matter from a purely practical point of view. He did not believe that his hon. Friend (Mr. T. H. Bolton) had entered into any conspiracy against the Bill; he believed there was really a practical point to be considered. He would go further, and say that if the Bill applied to purely rural parishes only, he should be inclined to support the Amendment. The late Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) had given up the question of the towns, and had said it was not proposed to abolish compounding in urban districts. Well, this Bill applied to an enormous number of urban parishes. In the County of Durham there were scores of parishes with large urban populations, and the same thing was to be said of South Northumberland, part of Cumberland, part of the North Riding of Yorkshire, and most of the West Riding, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Notts, Derby, and Glamorgan. Very many of these places were governed by Rural Authorities. A distinction could not be drawn in the Bill between rural parishes and parishes which were technically rural, but really urban. The Committee could not say—"There shall be on compounding in this parish because it is rural, but there shall be in the next-parish, because, although technically rural, it is really urban." The Bill must be made to apply to all parishes alike. The reasons for compounding in the parishes he had indicated were as great as were the reasons for compounding in the towns. Everybody who knew the Durham mining villages were aware that the men were as migratory there as in the towns, and that the difficulty of collecting a small rate from hundreds of such men in such a village would be practically as great as the difficulty of collecting a similar rate in the towns. If, therefore, the abolition of compounding were made compulsory, manifest injury would be done in all such places. There seemed to be a mistaken notion on the Opposition side of the House as to the authors of the compounding system and as to what they got by it. It was not, the poor men in the towns, but the Governing Authorities, having learnt by experience how advantageous the system was, who had brought about compounding. The reason was that the cost of collecting small rates from multitudes of poor men, who frequently had to be called upon again and again, and who were often found to have gone into another house, was so great and the annoyance so considerable that the compounding system was found to be the more advantageous to the Rating Authorities. He must tell the Mover of the Amendment that not merely did they save labour, and trouble, and annoyance, and law, but they absolutely got more money into the coffers of the town than they should by the opposite system. The conclusion, therefore, was that compounding was good for the towns which had willingly taken it on themselves, and that the rural districts—those which were technically rural, but really urban—should be allowed to either accept it or decline it for themselves. The Committee could not accept the Amendment without also making the same rule in the rural districts, and he, therefore, had come to the conclusion that it was perfectly impossible to do otherwise than accept the compounding system all through the Bill.

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD (Warwick, Stratford)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that it would be extremely unpopular in the case of labourers in rural districts to have the rate collector go round to their cottagers asking them for a rate which had never been collected before. Well, he would draw the attention of the Committee to a circumstance which had come under his own knowledge—namely, that in five counties, differently situated geographically, notices had been given to the labourers that the system of the landlord paying the rate would be done away with, and that in future the occupiers of the cottages would have to pay the rates themselves, the amount of the present rate being deducted from the rent.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Who has issued the notices?

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD

The landlords. When the cottagers were asked whether they had any objection to such a change their reply was—"No; we have no objection to such a change, because we feel that we shall know better what we are doing if we pay the rates ourselves." That showed that the men themselves, in these instances, took a sensible view of the matter, and thought that to be called upon to pay the new rate would be an advantage rather than a hardship to them. They knew that under the Act they would have to learn the art of governing in the parishes, and they felt they would learn better if they paid the rates themselves than if the landlord compounded. This, he thought, showed that the men would not object to an arrangement such as was proposed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had repeated the universal argument heard from right hon. and hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House— namely, that the rate was always considered in the rent, and that those who paid the rent also paid the rate.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he had not said that personally.

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD

said, the Opposition had been told that. They on their side said—"No; in the rural districts the rent is a fixed charge, but the rent is a variable charge." The result of the passing of the Bill in its present form, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol had pointed out, would be that where the cottages were let as a matter of speculation by small proprietors the rents would be immediately raised. Well, having regard to the fact that, so far as he could gather, such a change as was proposed by the hon. Member for St. Pancras would not be unpopular with the men, and also having regard to the fact that the men would gain nothing where the cottages were held by small owners, but, on the contrary, would have such a rent fixed as would be protective even against future rises in the rent, he thought, it would be wise to do away with compulsory compounding.

SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)

There are two reasons which make this Debate seem rather like ancient history. One is that we have already discussed this matter very fully in the first clause of the Bill—I am not saying that the Debate now is in any way out of Order—and the second is that, since we discussed the subject on the former occasion, we have adopted a proposal in the Bill which renders the Amendment absolutely indefensible. The system of compounding is much older than the dates which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend. He mentioned the Acts of 1852 and 1869; but ever since 1819, in rural parishes, there has been a great deal of compounding, and the question is, whether we are now to put an end to compulsory compounding which existed under the Act of 1819,and go back to the voluntary compounding of the 3rd section of the Act of 1869? I think the change proposed would have very doubtful results. Probably, com- pounding would continue to exist in the vast majority of parishes as it exists at present, because I believe that Section 3 of the Act would be availed of, and voluntary arrangements would be made.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

How do you know that compounding exists in the great majority of parishes?

SIR C. W. DILKE

I admit there is no Return. An hon. Member opposite, I am aware, said that we ought never to lay down the law unless we have a Return in our possession. We have no Return, but we have the ordinary means of obtaining information—keeping our eyes open and trying to make a Return for ourselves. In four parishes situated in three different counties, I have questioned the Overseers, and in all these it so happens that they have Compounding Rural Authorities. If we are to have these voluntary arrangements under Section 3, it will leave the franchise very much at the mercy of owners. The owners and the Parish Authorities would be able to make agreements from time to time, and it would leave the franchise of the parish far too much under the domination of these people for it to be a practical arrangement. When the hon. Member for Liverpool gives as his reason for supporting the change that we ought to make the voter realise that he is paying for the government that is being set up, I will give a reason which seems to me to make that argument a weak one. Since we last debated this matter we have settled the franchise. With the support of the Opposition, we have admitted the freeholder, the service voter, and the lodger to the franchise, but none of these classes pay rates. That fact, I say, weakens the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool in support of the Amendment. I would point out that the Leader of the Opposition, although he expressed some doubt about the lodger, nevertheless, in order to get the freeholder and the service voter in, supported that franchise. It does seem to me ancient history to discuss this question now on the ground the hon. Member for Liverpool has given, seeing that we have added these classes of voters.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said that, not for the first time in those Debates, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considerably widened the scope of the discussion. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the expression used by the hon. Member for St. Pancras —that he wished the compound householder to "appreciate" the rate he would have to pay- He said what the hon. Member wished was that he should "smart." But why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer sympathise with the compound householder only? If the Bill, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer anticipated, made other ratepayers "smart," why should the compound householder alone be excluded? That Amendment left the matter open for the decision of the locality. If in urban districts compounding was advantageous they would adopt it, but why should it be made compulsory? Compulsion was always undesirable, and should be avoided as far as possible, and he thought it very necessary that those who voted for expenditure should realise what they were doing.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I read the Amendment as prohibiting compounding altogether.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, the Amendment only prohibited compulsory compounding; it did not interfere with voluntary compounding.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, that what they had discussed before was whether certain classes of voters should be ratepayers. He considered that all electors under the Bill should be ratepayers.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Then, as the freeholder pays no rates, he is not to be a voter? The hon. Member would remove the freeholders, the lodgers, and the service voters from the list of parish electors.

MR. JEFFREYS

said, that very probably the Chairman would rule him out of Order if he attempted to discuss this matter. He had merely stated his opinion, that all parish electors should be ratepayers. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that under the Amendment there would be infinite trouble in collecting the 1s. or 1s. 6d. of rates from the cottagers, and that the liability to pay the rates would make the cottagers hate the Bill. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Bill was not worth 1s. or 1s. 6d. a year to the agricultural labourer? There had been all kinds of delusions in connection with this measure. In the first place, it was to do all kinds of good things to those living in the parishes that was only to cost 1d. in the £1 in the shape of rates; but now they had arranged—and arranged a good deal too easily on Friday night—that, instead of this illusory 1d. in the £1, they were to have a rate of 6d. in the £1, irrespective of the cost of the adoptive Acts. If the Amendments were not accepted, a much worse thing than the payment of this rate would happen to the occupiers of the cottages. The owners, particularly the small owners, would say to them—"We are not going to pay this extra 6d. in the £1. We already give you the cottages at a low rent." Most of the cottages in the country districts —as they knew from the evidence before the Labour Commission—were let for 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week. Very often this was merely the value of the small garden surrounding the cottage, leaving nothing for the rent of the building. Well, the small owners in all likelihood would say to the cottagers—"As you are not going to pay this rate you must pay an increased rent," and whereas the cottagers were paying a rent of 1s. a week or £2 12s. a year, in the future they would have to pay something like £3. An increase of 8s. or 10s. would be made so as to cover all rates that were now payable by the owners. Therefore, it would be worse for the occupiers than if they paid the 1s. or 1s. 6d. a year in the form of rates. He had had some experience of cottage property, and felt satisfied that there would be no difficulty whatever in collecting the rate. In many parts of Gloucestershire the compounding Act was not put in force, and it was a common thing there for all the small occupiers to pay the rates. If they did that in one county why should they not do it generally? Only this morning he had himself signed a rate book, and had asked the Overseer whether there would be any difficulty in collecting the rates from the cottagers. The reply he had received was—"None whatever." No doubt it would take up a little more time, and a slightly increased stipend would have to be given to the Assistant Overseer, but the thing could be done easily enough. They on the Opposition side of the House regarded this as one of the most important clauses of the Bill. Everybody who remembered what took place on Friday night would agree that there had been no obstruction. The discussions had been brief; but, certainly, more prolonged Debate was necessary on this clause, which was of the highest importance not only to those who owned the property, but to the cottagers themselves, because he believed that if the present Amendment, or something like it, were not accepted, the cottagers' rents would be increased, and they would consider that a greater hardship than if they had to pay the rates. Had the cottagers ever been asked whether they would like to pay the rates themselves? They had been asked in the case which had been referred to by a previous speaker, and they had replied that they had no objection to paying the rates. That was an instance to which the Committee should have some regard. He maintained that it would be better for everybody living in the rural districts that this system should prevail. Owners, farmers, and labourers were all bound up together in this matter, and all should bear a share of putting the Act in force. If the Amendment were adopted the cost to the labourer would be very small, and the labourer, he believed, would gladly pay it.

MR. H. L. LAWSON (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, that neither the hon. Member who introduced the Amendment nor the hon. Members who had supported it had told the Committee what it really was. It was not a proposal of a general character in regard to compounding, but was strictly confined to the parish rate. The hon. Member for St. Pancras proposed to introduce new inconsistencies, new anomalies, and new complexities into the fiscal system of our local government. It was the business of reformers to wipe them away. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked about the present system of local government being— A chaos of rates, a chaos of areas, and a chaos of authorities, and other local government reformers had talked about their aim being the consolidation of rates and of areas and authorities; but now it was proposed to divide the rates of the parish into two parts, and to have a special rate that would be levied in a different way in each parish from the old rate. It was well to remember that when the Opposition had an opportunity of dealing with the whole question of compounding in a comprehensive way under the Local Government Act of 1888 they made no proposal of any kind.

MR. W. LONG

said, the rate levied under the County Councils was the rate which had been levied under the old County Authorities, whereas it was an entirely new rate which was to be established by this Bill.

MR. H. L. LAWSON

said, that that was the case; but it was anticipated at the time that the rate would rise and that had turned out to be the case. Before anything was done to interfere with compounding, there should be an inquiry by a Select Committee or a Royal Commission. The Rating Authorities should be consulted and evidence should be taken. As to the incidence of the rate, that depended to some extent on the class of house and class of owner. The economic rent was the best rent obtainable, not necessarily a fair return upon the capital: the truth was, the rent of farm cottages depended upon the agricultural conditions of the district and of the estate. He was not opposed to the principle of direct payment, but anything more calculated to introduce confusion into the management of rural parishes than this Amendment he could not conceive. It would make confusion worse confounded; in fact, he did not think the hon. Member for St. Pancras was serious in moving the Amendment. The hon. Member had said that he would like to apply the principle of his proposal all round, but that would be outside the scope of the Bill and would be beyond the power of the Committee. He (Mr. Lawson) hoped the Committee would emphatically reject the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

Allusion has been made to my policy in 1869 and 1871, but hon. Gentlemen have not had regard to the counterbalancing proposals which gave a very different character to the system introduced as a whole. I might dilate on that at some length, but I will not do so. It is true that, like many other local government reformers, in my plans of 1869 and 1871 I did my best in the direction of simplicity and concentration; but another object to be borne in mind, and one which must weigh against simplicity and con- centration, is that men should understand the financial situation in which they stand. Since the time when compounding was first introduced, I think the disadvantages from that point of view have become very patent. Both sides declare that they pay the rates; and the effect of compounding has been to hide the effect of a rate. Another point to be considered is how much parishes lose by the very large amount of discount which is given in compounding, the discount being larger than that originally expected. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the loss to the parishes if the collection were made from the labourers themselves rather than from the owners. There would be a little more additional trouble and somewhat larger cost. But the question is, whether even that cost would not be recouped by the saving that would occur? The loss occurs not merely among the agricultural population of the rural parishes, but among the shifting population of the towns; and now that Parish Councils are being established, it is very desirable that people should see that they cost a certain sum of money, so that they may consider whether they are worth the outlay. If you are going to hide the effect of the new expenditure by compounding, it is certain that the labourer will not know what he pays for the new objects, or whether he is paying too much or too little. An hon. Member behind me says that if the rate is thrown on the owners, and they find that they are not making the interest on their capital that they expect, they will say—"If this new rate is going to be placed on us we will increase the rents," and that in that case the increase of rent will be larger than the new rate. ["Why?"] I think hon. Gentlemen opposite, as men of business, must see why. Unless held upon the footing that landlords must be generous, cottage property does not pay. But in some neighbourhoods—my own among others—cottage property is owned by people dissociated from the land who make a business of letting it; and this class of owners will endeavour to raise their rents if new rates are put upon them, just as dealers in other commodities increase the prices of their goods when the amount they have to pay for them is larger than it was before. I believe that in this country owners of cottage pro- perty have, as a rule, been anxious not to put their cottages upon a commercial footing; but, if rates continue to be placed upon owners, and if the old relations between landlords and cottagers are going to be destroyed and the labourers are to show their independence, is it not possible that if you do not take precautions rents will be placed much more upon a commercial footing than now, owners recouping themselves out of the rents for loss? If they do that, you will not have the advantage of the labourers knowing what they are actually paying. The upshot of the matter is that while, no doubt, consolidation and simplification are objects we ought to strive for, there are cases in which it is desirable to bring home expenditure to those who incur it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Only to the agricultural labourers.

MR. GOSCHEN

I do not understand that remark. Almost everybody in the parish will have it brought home to them. Is it not wise that those who pay should have a knowledge of the fact?

SIR W. HARCOURT

If that is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, why, may I ask, was he the author of the Act of 1869?

MR. GOSCHEN

I have already explained that the Act of 1869 was accompanied by elaborate arrangements for representation of owners.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Not in the Act of 1869.

MR. GOSCHEN

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a Committee sat in the following year, and subsequently proposals were made. The whole series must be taken together. I went for simplification and for consolidation, and the owners were so represented that the dangers which may now be taken to exist were obviated. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made so many changes during the course of his varied career—

SIR W. HARCOURT

Not of the sides of the House.

MR. GOSCHEN

No; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has forgotten that the Prime Minister has changed the sides of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is sometimes very anxious to lead us into side ways, but I will not allow myself to be beguiled any further. But since 1869 I have not changed my opinions with regard to compounding in general; but during the discussions on local taxation during the last 10 years I and my friends have seen the disadvantage of not being able to distinguish the real person who is paying the rates. I have seen that in all efforts that have been made in the direction of the relief of taxation no one has taken greater advantage of the obscurity that has arisen through compounding, in confusing issues before the country, than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented the action of the Conservative Party by speaking as if it had been taken entirely for the relief of the owners, and he has himself in no small degree assisted to develop in my mind doubts as to whether compounding is as-desirable as we originally thought. It is desirable in the administrative sense and in the collective sense, but not in the sense of desiring to bring home to the parish elector a knowledge of the amount of expenditure he was incurring. Speaking for myself, I am not ashamed to say that great doubts have arisen in my mind as to whether it would not be wise that a person should see by paying his own rates to what extent he is interested in the rates that are levied and expended.

MR. NEWDIGATE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland had said that there would be very great difficulty in collecting the rates from the miners, because they were such a shifting body. Well, he (Mr. Newdigate) was acquainted with one mining district in Warwickshire, and he could say that the men who lived there did not change about much from year to year. He would also appeal to the hon. Member for Ilkeston and ask him if this were not the case in, at all events, one locality in Derbyshire? It would be just as easy to collect rates from them as from any other members of the community. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had said that the Opposition considered that when these Parish Councils were created there would be unprecedented extravagance on the part of the peasant class. Well, he did not believe that the peasantry would be extravagant with their own money, as their action in connection with Friendly Societies testified, where the expenditure of every penny was accounted for. But if their eyes were blinded, so to speak, and the money they were dealing with was apparently contributed by somebody else, they would be apathetic. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that if this proposal were passed a deadly blow would be struck at the operation of the Bill; but in his own view the deadly blow would be struck rather at some of the phantasies promised to the rural electors at the last Election. The rural electors would know that they could not have all the benefits which hon. Gentlemen had promised them, without paying the piper. He had been astonished to hear the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean quote the precedent of the Act of 1819. He had thought that such a good Radical as the right hon. Baronet would be only too glad to see so old an Act swept away. It seemed, however, that if an old Act could be brought in which would suit their preconceived notions, Radicals of the deepest dye were only too glad that it should stand on the Statute Book. The Act of 1869 appeared to be permissive. He failed to see what reasonable ground the Government could have for resisting the Amendment. He was certain that the agricultural labourers would be only too glad that when this new privilege was given to them they should receive at the same time a new responsibility, and pay their rates directly, instead of paying them indirectly in their rent. He appealed to the Committee to support the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board made reference to some remarks of mine on this clause which I think showed some slight misapprehension of the point I urged. The right hon. Gentleman said, and said very properly, that I suggested that the parochial rates should be clearly specified and separately indicated in the demand note. He went on to say that he had himself made provision for meeting the case. I am not disposed to cavil at the manner in which he has carried out his engagement; but, while I take that view, I cannot assent to the proposition that my suggestion is inconsistent with the proposal now before the Committee. When I made my proposal I had not the question of a separate rate in view. I was merely suggesting that payments in respect of parochial expenditure should be ear-marked, and should be distinguished from all other payments which the ratepayer has to make. But the hon. Member for St. Pancras has a wider object in view, and that is a distinct question from the point with which I was dealing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer threw a good deal of light upon this subject. I am bound to say that when the right hon. Gentleman gives us the benefit of his views he is always frank and straightforward, and he on this occasion fairly let the cat out of the bag. The right hon. Gentleman, in effect, told us that he meant to run the parish voter in blinkers, and did not want him to know how much the cost would be. That shows what his appreciation is of the intelligence of the average parish voter. It was an absolute concealment of the amount of parochial expenditure. I say let the compound householder know what the cost is, and that is a fair and square way of seeing precisely how the proposal works.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said, he heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer join in the cry of "Divide!" and he would tell the right hon. Gentleman that he was bound to speak now on account of the offensive and odious imputations which he had made in his speech. He denied that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to make the charge that those who were supporting the Amendment were endeavouring to destroy the Bill.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Pardon me; I did not say that. I said exactly the opposite. I said I imputed no motives to anybody, but I stated that in my opinion that would be the result to the Bill.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that he approached this matter from a practical point of view. There were a great many parishes—unfortunately, how many they did not know—in which the most convenient system was found to be that of the direct payment of rates. What they asked was that where the compounding system was not in force there should not be any authority to put it in force against the wish of the owner of the house. They thought it better, for every reason, that the rates should he paid directly, and it had nothing to do with the question of the franchise. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment, he understood, in no way wished to interfere with the franchise. Whether the system of compounding was in force or not the franchise had been determined and would not be altered. The Bill itself did not deal with the rates by the way of direct collection.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S. E.)

said, he wished to congratulate the hon. Member for St. Pancras upon his courage in introducing an Amendment which was designed to obviate the gross unfairness that at present existed in the payment of rates. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that it would be inconvenient and irksome to collect rates from the cottages, but it was inconvenient and irksome to pay the Income Tax, and he would not do so if he could help it. The right hon. Gentleman, however, would not accept that as an excuse. He agreed that the Amendment might be somewhat difficult to carry out, but that would be the business of the Government. He would like to allude to the attack made upon him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Friday. The right hon. Gentleman taunted him with having introduced a Bill embodying the principle of compulsory hiring. He was not ashamed of having done so, and would be very glad to do it again; but the right hon. Gentleman forgot to say that, although he was in favour of the principle of compulsory hiring now, yet his Bill had been blocked many times in one Session.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I did not attack the hon. Member at all. I simply read the names at the back of the Bill. I never made any observations about the hon. Member except in the classification —repudiated on the other side—that the names on the back of the Bill included eminent Members of the Party opposite.

MAJOR RASCH

said, that although the right hon. Gentleman was now in favour of compulsory hiring, the Bill he alluded to was blocked many times.

THE CHAIRMAN

said that the hon. Member was now travelling beyond the question before the House.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES, who, on rising, was received with cries of "Divide!" said, he could not understand the im- patience shown by hon. Members' below the Gangway opposite, because if the effect of the Amendment was to throw the burden of the cost of carrying out the views of the Councils upon those who managed the affairs of those Councils, there would be no necessity for limiting so strictly the power of rating to be conferred upon the Councils. If, how ever, the Councils had the power of rating conferred upon them without the, corresponding burden of contributing to the rates being imposed upon them there was no limit to the amount of mischief which they might do. He had read in the Report of the President of the Local Government Board of the monstrous and vexations vagaries of the poor rate; he said it was spent on objects which were not, directly or indirectly, connected with the poor. Another charge was now proposed to be put upon the poor rate, for they were going to set up these parish meetings throughout the country, and undoubtedly they would entail a new and a very serious charge. Surely they had a right to inquire about it and to suggest improvements, as he was afraid the object was to encourage people to embark upon extravagant expenditure and foolish undertakings, encouraged by the belief that somebody else was to pay for them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, although not usually a timid man, was in favour of this method of concealment. He, himself, wished to see the largest possible liberty given to parish meetings and Councils, but he wished that to be accompanied by the responsibility and the knowledge that what they did they would have to pay for. The whole future of this question depended on the decision taken on this Amendment, and he hoped it would be adopted.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport), who was met with cries of "Divide," said that, interested as he was in this question, and representing as he did a very large agricultural district, it was hardly unjust that he should take up two or three minutes in speaking upon a question which decidedly concerned the agricultural constituencies and Members. He was anxious only to make the measure more workable, and he felt that he would not be discharging his duty if he did not urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept this most practical Amendment. The Amendment would take away one of the great objections to the Bill, and would make a higher level of self-government than now existed. He would vote for it with the greatest confidence.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 195; Noes 132.—(Division List, No. 354.)

On the Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 9, line 1, after the word "Council," to insert the words "and the Chairman of the parish meeting respectively.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 3, at end, to insert the following sub-section:—" The demand note for any rate levied for defraying the expenses of a Parish Council or a parish meeting, together with other expenses, shall state in the prescribed form the proportion of the rate levied for the first mentioned purpose."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

^*SIR F. S. POWELL moved to insert in the proposed Amendment, after the words "parish meeting," the words "under this Act." His object was to secure that the ratepayers should be informed of how much they had to pay under each of the adoptive Acts, and not be kept in the dark by the whole thing being heaped into one big sum.

"Amendment proposed in the proposed Amendment, To insert after the words " parish meeting," the words "under this Act.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not see the necessity for this Amendment. The expenses of the adoptive Acts will form part of the expenses of the Parish Council or the parish meeting, as the case may be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would avail of the opportunity of this Amendment to give some proper nomenclature to the new rate to be levied. He suggested that it should be called the "parochial rate."

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

The Amendment refers to defraying the expenses of a Parish Council and of a parish meeting. Now, the words of Sub-section 3 to which we have agreed are— (3) A rate levied by a Parish Council for their expenses, other than expenses under any of the adoptive Acts, shall not exceed 6d. in the £1 for any local financial year. There is nothing about any limit to a rate levied by the parish meeting. I would suggest that an alteration making good this defect be made in the sub-section on Report.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There is no error. The parish meeting has no rating power whatever.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

The Amendment refers to "the first mentioned purpose." Am I to understand that the demand note is to show the expenses of the Parish Council and not to show the expenses under the adoptive Acts?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Suppose a rate of 1s. 6d. in the £1 is levied. The demand note will say how much for the poor rate, how much for the highway rate, how much for education, and how much for what has been called the parochial rate. But it would be impracticable to require the expenses under the adoptive Acts to be stated also.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

What will be the prescribed form of the demand note?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The prescribed form of the Local Government Board.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Amendment will carry out what he wishes? If he refers back to Sub-section 3 of the clause he will see that it refers to a rate levied by the Parish Council for their expenses. What is wanted is that the rate levied for their expenses shall be distinguished from the other rates.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is distinguished.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure that the expenses of the Parish Council or of the parish meeting shall in neither instance include the adoptive Acts?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

SIR R. WEBSTER

I think the Amendment might be allowed to pass now, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see before the Report stage that it would be better to enumerate the different purposes of the rate.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

I would point out that a limit has been put to the expenses of the Parish Council, as apart from the adoptive Acts, and how are the ratepayers to know that the limit has been preserved if the demand note does not distinguish between them?

MR. J. LOWTHER

I think the Amendment has been drawn so as to meet the draft of the Bill as originally introduced; but, as my hon. Friend opposite has pointed out, it now needs reconsideration.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will look into the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*SIR F. S. POWELL moved to insert, at the end of the last addition to the clause, the words and for the purposes of each adoptive Act in force in the parish.

His experience was that Local Authorities were reluctant to give full information on the demand note, and the object of his proposal was to make it compulsory on them to give the details of the rate they proposed to levy.

Amendment proposed, after the words last added, to add the words and for the purposes of each adoptive Act in force in the parish."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 189.—(Division List, No. 355.)

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor. I wish to state that there were six Members in the " Aye" Lobby not counted.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

I wish to explain that the hon. Gentlemen referred to did not pass the Clerks who take the names, and, therefore, could not be counted by my hon. Colleague.

THE CHAIRMAN

Under the circumstances, I think that there can be no objection taken.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

Is there no remedy?

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

Before the clause is added to the Bill I wish to call attention to one or two matters of importance. It was suggested by my hon. Friend behind me that the incidence of the rates under this Bill should be as the sanitary rates are. When the Amendment of my hon. Friend was proposed the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill intimated it could not be accepted, and he told the Committee the effect of the acceptance of the Amendment would be to reduce by one-fourth the spending income of these Parochial Authorities. At the time I felt that that was a very formidable objection to the proposal. Further than that, it was very late on Friday evening, and I was not at all desirous of postponing, at that moment, the Division on the Amendment then under consideration. For my own part, I may say I contemplated such an arrangement of the finances of these Local Authorities as would, if the Committee had thought fit to adopt it, have admitted of that principle in conjunction with the fixed limit. No doubt, as the words stand, the right hon. Gentleman is right in his contention that it would have the effect of reducing by one-fourth the available income of the authority, but that was not the intention of my hon. Friend, nor is it my intention now in pressing it upon the Committee, and I hope I shall be able to show a good reason why the subject should be again considered, and cannot be disposed of with the simple statement that it would interfere with the limit of income already arrived at. The desirability of fixing the incidence for the parochial rate, as the special expenses are now levied for poor rates—the desirability of doing that is this: that it would be in the first instance a matter of justice to the owners and occupiers of agricultural land, and in the second place that it would facilitate the operation of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. There are a good many villages in this country where there is to be found in the village a certain proportion of residential houses, and here and there the factory, mill, or place of business of some kind. To these factories or mills the improvement of the street part of the village is a matter of great importance, and it is from them the application first arises, and it would only appear fair that those who benefit should be those who pay their fair share of what the cost would be under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I find that if the Local Authority put into operation the Libraries Act the rate that can be imposed is 1d. in the £l upon the Poor Law valuation, but at the same time the expenses of the Act have to fall on the different classes of property in the degree of one-third for agricultural land. That is precisely the same condition of things that would arise if the Amendment of my hon. Friend had been accepted. What I ask now is that the President of the Local Government Board should hear what is to be said on this point by the representatives of the agricultural interest, and if he sees we have good ground for the suggestion we make that he would consider between now and the Report whether it would not be better that this incidence of the rate should be the same as these special expenses, and that those who live in what I may term, for a better word, the urban part of the village, should pay their full share. Anything you may do in the way of drainage, of improving the water supply, in the way of improving the pathways, or any work of that kind, is of no benefit to the property owner and occupier who lives at a distance from the village, except incidentally in the improvement of the village. Unless some better reason is given than has yet been urged I am satisfied they will feel it to be a great injustice if you take what would be altogether a new departure. These Parish Councils will be more of the nature of the Sanitary Authority we have in our districts now, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the importance he attached to giving pure water and healthy surroundings to the inhabitants; therefore, was it not his hope that the Parish Council would be able to improve the sanitary condition of these villages? It is a common saying that the incidence of rates in agricultural districts has become of late a growing and more seriously felt burden. This House is tired of hearing of agricultural depression and the difficulties that have been surrounding us now for many years. You may tell us, if you will, it is our own fault, but you cannot deny that they exist; that agricultural depression of the gravest character is to be found, and I ask the Committee to pause before bringing into existence a new authority and creating new rates. It may be true the Committee will say that a 6d. rate is a very small amount when it only amounts to £100 or £120, but when it has to be; paid by five or six owners or occupiers who already feel the burden of local expenditure, they will not consider your 6d. rate a small one. They will grumble and complain if they think it has been imposed without fully realising what it is you are doing. All we ask is this: that you shall fix your limit so that it shall produce 6d. in the £1 on your poor rate assessment, but for the purposes of recovering the expenditure incurred by the Local Authority you shall rate them as special expenses. In doing that you would remove much of the friction that will be created and without doing an injustice to anyone; on the contrary, you would be avoiding an injustice to the agricultural community of this country, who are entitled to be heard here. I have ventured to call the attention of the Committee to this matter, because I feel it to be a most grave and important one. This Clause 10, from our point of view, is the most important clause in the Bill. Whether you regard it as we do or not, there can be no question of this: that the future success of your measure will largely depend upon the way in which its financial powers are used. You may say the labourers will be able greatly to improve their lives and surroundings by spending a little money. It is true that in moderation they can, but let me entreat you not to forget this fact: that many men are carrying on this agricultural industry almost under a feeling of hopelessness and despair, and are asking themselves whether the game is worth the candle. £100 a year may seem little, a 6d. rate may seem little to the Committee, but when it is thrown upon four or five owners or occupiers you will tempt them to say—"This is our last straw; we will throw up our industry, and go away with the little we have." If by any hasty decision of this Committee you bring about in the parishes such a result you will do an irreparable injury to the agricultural labourer, you will deprive him of his first source of income, his wages. It is in the interests not of the landowners, the landlords, or the small occupiers, but in the landed interest generally that I venture to press on Her Majesty's Government the claim to a rearrangement of the Financial Clauses. I hope and trust the right hon. Gentle- man, who has hitherto given to our proposals and Amendments the fullest and fairest consideration, will extend to this matter, though coming, unfortunately, at the eleventh hour, his further consideration, and will not put down his foot and say it cannot be dealt with. There is no question of politics here, and I believe if he can see his way to remove the difficulty and have these expenses levied as special expenses he will give to this Bill a better impetus for success than he will do if he leaves the incidence as at present.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am in a somewhat unfortunate position. On Friday night this question was raised and discussed, and the House divided upon it, and decided it would not entertain the proposal then made. Now I understand the hon. Gentleman opposite to say he admits the validity of the reply which I then made, which practically amounted, so far as agricultural land is concerned, to reducing the rateable value of the parish 75 per cent., and that it would reduce the rate to an unappreciable amount, because, as he admits, the result would be not to increase the rate payable by occupiers of houses, but practically to reduce the produce of the rate. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly within his right in raising the question, though he cannot raise it in a way to take the decision of the House upon it at this stage, but at a future stage possibly he proposes to himself to raise and re-open this question when probably he will be prepared to suggest a plan whereby this proportion of rating could be made without inflicting the injustice that would follow what are called local and special expenses. Any Amendment he might put down would receive full and careful consideration. I am not going to say how such an Amendment will be met until I have seen the Amendment, but I do in the most respectful manner protest against re-opening the arguments urged in Debate on this clause now that the Committee have come to a definite decision on this question. After the understanding come to on Friday night, whilst quite recognising the right of the hon. Gentleman to give me the notice he has given, I do not think it would be in accordance with what then transpired if we discussed the question on a technical question that this clause be added to the Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I think it is only fair that I should give notice that at a future stage I intend to raise more than one point in connection with this clause. The right hon. Gentleman said it was fully debated on Friday; I challenge that statement.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not fully debated, but decided.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I am glad to hear that, for he must realise the fact that this important point received scanty discussion. Owing to the desire on the part of many Members to terminate the discussion on the clause a very important point was practically almost overlooked except by some very hurried sentences exchanged by hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House and the physical feat of walking through the Lobbies.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I made a speech, and speeches were made by hon. Members on the other side.

MR. J. LOWTHER

That can hardly be called adequate discussion on an important point in the Bill. But there are other points I wish to draw attention to mainly with the view of his considering the question between this and Report. I would point out that, if he compares the original draft of the Bill with the clause as it stands on page 24 on the Notice Paper to-day, he will see that he has practically cut out one-half of his clause; the Committee, under his guidance, has reduced the clause by one-half —if he measures it he will find it is almost exactly half what it was when originally drawn. It is not merely the actual number of words and lines to which I draw attention, but most important provisions were omitted—I refer to the control he proposed the District and County Councils should exercise in respect of expenditure by a Parochial Body when it comes to exceed the limit of a 1d. in the £1. I am aware the insertion of a limit beyond which the rating powers should not be expended is a very valuable addition; but, at the same time, I hope that between now and Report he will consider the desirability of reconsidering the drafting of the Bill; that he will retain the maximum of 6d., and also retain the controlling power of the District, or at any rate the Parish Council. We know that in private life a young man coming of age suddenly finds himself in possession of an increase of fortune he is not invariably disposed to exercise his spending powers upon with discretion; and if he goes to a friend for advice, even though that friend may not himself in his own life be a model of economy, he always advises him not to spend too much money. That is proverbial, and well-constituted bodies like these Parochial Bodies, not having experience in spending public money, should be induced to have recourse to the Local Bodies that have had experience in the administration of public affairs. I think it was a valuable provision, as drawn, that not more than 1d. in the £1 should be spent without some control being exercised over their spending powers by a more experienced authority. While not wishing to disturb the decision of the Committee as to the maximum limit, I think the right hon. Gentleman might with advantage recur to his own original machinery, and that the County Council might be interposed as a safeguard against the unnatural increase of the rates. The right hon. Gentleman himself used a strong argument on the point I am now urging. He said that in his own judgment, putting the limit of 6d. in the Bill instead of 1d., that every Local Body, every Parish Authority would consider that the sum mentioned in the Bill was the sum to which it might legitimately aim.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Nobody believed me.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I am bound to say in my own defence I cheered the right hon. Gentleman, and got up almost immediately and said I concurred with him, so personally, at any rate, I must take exception to the general imputation of the right hon. Gentleman that his valuable proposal was universally declined. But without dwelling upon this, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recur to his original opinion. He will see it is most desirable that a newly-constituted authority, for the most part possessing no practical experience in the administration of public money, should, in the early stages of its existence, be under some control. I am sorry it should have devolved upon me to defend the Bill against its author, but I felt it my duty to do so, because the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee at large has failed, in many cases, to realise the strong feeling that prevails in the country with regard to the increase of rates. It is one of the strongest feelings, and finds expression in all parts of the country, and I feel myself specially bound to lay the matter before the Committee, because I have been charged with the duty of laying before this House a very decided opinion in this respect from the Chambers of Agriculture in the country. There was no subject on which the Chambers of Agriculture expressed themselves more strongly than the increase of rates.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry), who was received with cries of "Divide," said, he was not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be desirous that the discussion should close, for the clause had been passed almost sub silentio. It was difficult to realise what was in this financial clause unless they looked at it critically. It had been changed until no one would believe it was anything like the original clause, and the Bill itself had become a gigantic engine for increasing the rates without limit. The 1d. rate talked about all over the country had exploded, and they found that in the aggregate the rates would come to about 1s. 6d. in the £1. The right hon. Gentleman himself told them that the adoption of only one of the adoptive Acts, the Lighting and Watching Act, in one place cost no less than 11d. in the £1, and yet the right hon. Gentleman did not know that when he brought in the Bill, so that they had from the right hon. Gentleman an example—not taken from his imagination, but taken from fact—of the tremendous rating possibilities there were in these adoptive Acts. If they allowed the villagers to know what the rating was the Bill would break down, and this was just what he wanted the ratepayers in the parishes to know. He wanted the people to understand that the Government were placing on their backs a burden heavy to bear, and that the Government had taken a time for placing it upon them when in the rural parishes they had unprecedented distress, when there was want of money, low wages, and depression everywhere. He protested against transforming the Parish Councils Bill into a Bill for the unlimited increase of the rates of rural parishes.

SIR R. PAGET

wished to give the President of the Local Government Board notice that the 6d. rate which had been agreed to as the maximum would impose a liability upon the land of England and Wales alone of no less than £1,000,000 sterling a year. That was a burden which would fall with a terrible crushing weight upon the farmers, and especially upon the yeoman owners of the land. There would be no escape from this burden, as in the case of the Income Tax, where people with small in-comes could get off. This tax would be imposed with full severity on all, no matter how small the farm might be, and he should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not point out this fact, and say that the hasty decision of this House on this point would have to be reconsidered. The rateable value of the land had fallen enormously of late years; it was diminishing in value from year to year, and yet they were imposing by this Bill a new and separate burden upon the land, in addition to the heavy burdens that already existed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 11 (Borrowing by Parish Council.)

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

suggested that after the words "any lands," in line 6, the words " or buildings " should be added, so that it would be clear that the Parish Council could borrow money for the purpose of acquiring buildings. As the clause stood, it appeared that the Parish Council could only raise loans for the purpose of acquiring land or erecting buildings, and could not acquire buildings already in existence.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the matter was quite clear in the Interpretation Act without the Amendment.

SIR R. WEBSTER

expressed the opinion that the Amendment was not necessary, and

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

thereupon intimated that he would not move it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked if the right hon. Gentleman put in any interpretation as to lands?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

replied in the negative. The matter was included in the general interpretations.

MR. HANBURY

pointed out that in line 10 the words occurred "for any permanent work or other thing." The words " or other thing " were very vague, and he suggested they should be replaced by others which were more definite.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

confessed that he himself did not like the words, and he would look into the matter and see if an alteration could be made.

SIR R. WEBSTER

suggested that part of the clause should read " any permanent or other work." Probably the right hon. Gentleman would take that view.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will look into the matter.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 9, line 12, to leave out " district" and insert " county.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

observed that in line 13 it was stated that the period for the repayment of a loan was to be spread over a term of years. Was there, he asked, any definite period?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Local Government Board had a fixed scale ranging over a large number of years, the period, in some cases, being as low as five years.

MR. T. H. BOLTON moved the following Amendment:— In page 9, line 14, to leave out "with the consent of the District Council and the Local Government Board," and insert "from the County Council the.

He said, he should not press the Amendment upon the right hon. Gentleman. The clause proposed that the Parish Council should borrow with the consent of the County Council and the Local Government Board, and what he suggested was that the Parish Council should borrow from the County Council so as to make the latter the authority not only to decide upon the propriety of the loan, but actually to lend the money. The County Council would be able by County Stock to raise the money quite as cheaply as even the Public Loans Commission. He formally moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 14, to leave out the words "with the consent of the District Council and the Local Government Board," and insert the words "from the County Council the."—(Mr. T. S. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that if his hon. Friend would refer to Subsection 2 he would find that a County Council could lend the money. With regard to the other part of the Amendment, he would point out that Parliament had laid down the rule that one and all of the Local Authorities should, so far as borrowing powers were concerned, be under the power of the Local Government Board. One of the great reasons for that was because the Local Government Board were the guardians of the ratepayers of the future. A representative body looked after the ratepayers of to-day; it was the business of the Local Government Board to see that the provisions which Parliament had made to guard the ratepayers of the future were properly safeguarded, and the mode by which they did it was that which was indicated in this clause, and by which the borrowing powers of Local Authorities were under the control of the Local Government Board. They did not interfere with the discretion of the Local Authority as to the expenditure of today; but when the Local Authority of to-day imposed burdens which might be in existence years hence, it was their duty to have a permanent work which should be of advantage to the ratepayers of the future, and to have the interests of these ratepayers safeguarded. The safeguard which was provided was one which the Parish Councils would need as much as other bodies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

proposed, after the word "consent," in line 14, to insert the words— In writing of persons rated to the relief of the poor of the parish, the assessment of whose hereditaments amount at least to one-fourth of the net rateable value of such parish and with the approval. These words, he said, were practically taken, with a slight limitation, from a provision of the Public Health Act, 1875. There was a provision that, where certain powers were granted to a Rural Authority, they should only be granted with the assent of the persons whose hereditaments amounted to at least one-tenth of the net rateable value of the parish. If they could do anything to stop the appalling and terrible increase of local indebtedness, they ought to do so. The Report of the Local Government Board on this point was really very serious reading indeed. The President of the Local Government Board himself, in the Report of this year, pointed out that between 1874 and 1890, while the National Debt had gone down from £769,000,000 to £684,000,000, the local debt had gone up from £93,000,000 to £201,000,000, showing that the liabilities of Local Authorities in respect of outstanding loans had increased between 1874 and 1890 by 116 per cent. The increase of local loans was awful to contemplate.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Member should give the increase of rateable value also.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, that no doubt the rateable value had largely increased, but he doubted that there had been any increase in the rural parishes with which they were now dealing. In the rural parishes there was not that weight of burdens in the way of loans that there was in the towns and urban districts. In the purely rural districts there was only £3,900,000 of loans out of the £201,000,000. No less than one-half of all this cost had been caused by the introduction of District School Boards, which had been responsible for the £2,000,000 out of the £4,000,000 of debts in the rural districts, there being only £2,000,000 of debt for purely rural purposes. Under this clause it appeared to him there would be an opportunity for vastly increasing the burden of debt in the purely rural districts, therefore some such restriction as he proposed ought to be imposed. What could be better evidence of the desire of the inhabitants for and the necessity of a loan than the fact that a substantial number of ratepayers who paid a substantial part of the rates should have assented to the application for the loan? His proposal was a modest one. He suggested that one-fourth of the rateable value of the parish should be at the back of the application for leave to contract the loan. If the right hon. Gentleman desired even a smaller fraction than one-fourth he had no objection so long as the principle was maintained that before the expenses involving a loan should be incurred in any parish there should be at the back of the desire for that loan a substantial body of ratepayers who would have to bear a substantial part of the expense thus incurred. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 14. after the words " consent," to insert the words " in writing of persons rated to the relief of the poor of the parish, the assessment of whose hereditaments amounts at least to one-fourth of the net rateable value of such parish and with the approval."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the illustration which the hon. Member gave was hardly pertinent to the matter. The provision in the Public Health Act, to which he had referred, stated that a Rural Authority might be invested with certain urban authority on the application of petitioners representing one-tenth of the net rateable value. With reference to these borrowing powers he would ask what greater precautions could they have than those provided by the Bill? First, the parish meeting must consent. That meant a poll and the consent of a majority of the parochial electors. Secondly, the County Council must approve, and he thought the County Council was a body that might be trusted to prevent rural extravagance; thirdly, the Local Government Board, which was an absolutely independent authority and which scrutinised these things with the greatest possible keenness, must sanction it; fourthly, the County Council and the Local Government Board together, if the Committee were good enough to pass his (Mr. Fowler's) Amendment, would see that the amount to be borrowed could not exceed one-half of the assessable value of the net income of the parish for two years; and, fifthly, the amount to be borrowed could not exceed 6d. in the £1, including principal and interest. He would ask the hon. Member whether it was possible to hedge a borrowing power round with greater precautions than those? The proposal of the hon. Member, he submitted, would be introducing a most dangerous principle which they should have to extend to all Local Authorities, municipal and otherwise. There was nothing he should like better than to have a full debate with the hon. Gentleman on the question both of taxation and the duty of the Local Authorities, and a great many other questions raised not only in the Report of the Local Government Board, but also in the Report which he (Mr. Fowler) had the honour of presenting to the Treasury on local taxation. He would resist the temptation on the present occasion, simply concluding by asking whether they had not, in limiting the borrowing powers to one-half of the net income for two years, imposed a sufficient safeguard against that extravagance which the hon. Member professed to anticipate?

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, with reference to the present safeguards, if the majority of the parish meeting did not represent one-fourth of the rateable value of the parish, then a loan ought not to be forced on the parish. As to the District and County Councils, they were not going to pay the loan when it fell due or the interest on it. With regard to the Local Government Board, he was sure they would discharge their duty to the best of their ability, but this Bill was casting upon them 15,000 new Local Authorities for them to deal with, and they might not have Argus eyes enough to watch these authorities. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that if the Amendment were adopted they should have to extend this veto of a substantial part of the ratepayers to other authorities. For his part, he should be delighted to see it so extended. He would not, however, press the Amendment to a Division, but would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 9, line 14, to leave out the word " district," and insert the word " county.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In line 15, to leave out the word " money," and insert the words " such sums as the Parish Council from time to time think requisite for the purpose. He said, the Bill as it stood was modelled on the line of the Public Health Act of 1875, from which the words of the Government were taken, but there was a newer and better model—namely, the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882, in which the words were that they might borrow not " money," but such sums as the Council from time to time think necessary.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is copied from the Act of 1835. This is a later draft, which we have adopted from the Act of 1875, and we cannot depart from it.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, if the words he had proposed were inserted they would not withdraw the control of the Local Government Board, who would have the same power as now, whilst they they would obviate certain difficulties in the present practice, save great expense in the way of legal preliminaries for the loan, and simplify the matter very considerably. However, as the right hon. Gentleman had indicated that the Government would not accept the Amendment, he would not move it.

COMMANDER BETHELL, referring to the expression "poor rate," in line 21 of the clause, asked whether it was not possible to alter the nomenclature of the whole rate? The poor rate would still exist as part of the consolidated rate just as other portions of the rate did. It seemed to him a ridiculous practice to go on perpetuating this system of lumping the rates under the term "poor rate."

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In Sub-section 1, after " Council," to insert "and except that as respects the limit of the sum to be borrowed, one-half of the assessable value shall be substituted for the assessable value for two years.

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, he would like to know what the half of the assessable value would be?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there were various questions in connection with this question that they could not settle in the Bill.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he would like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the provisions of a subsection in the 16th clause of the Local Government Act of 1888 bearing upon the question.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there could be no analogy between the County Council and Parish Council in such a matter. With regard to local inquiries, he believed them to be a most salutary check.

An hon. MEMBER asked why the right hon. Gentleman did not propose local inquiry?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that must be left to the discretion of the Local Government Board. There might be cases where there would be no necessity for it.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved to add the following words to Sub-section 1:— Provided that neither the County Council nor the Local Government Board shall give their consent to any loan under this section until they have had submitted to them a statement in the prescribed form, showing the amount of all outstanding loans chargeable on the parish or on any part thereof, or on any larger area including such parish, whether contracted by the Parish Council, the District Council, the School Board, or any other Local Authority. And where it shall appear from such statement that the sum proposed to be borrowed, together with the balances or share of the balances of all the outstanding loans chargeable on such parish or part thereof, would exceed the assessable value for one year of the premises assessable within the parish in respect of which such money may be borrowed, the Local Government Board shall not give their consent to such loan until one of their Inspectors has held a local inquiry and reported to the Board. Provided also, that in the case of a loan chargeable on a larger area than the parish, the share of the balances chargeable on the parish shall be estimated according to the proportion which the assessable value of the parish bears to the assessable value of the larger area. He said, they were indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for the safeguard which had been introduced. He now proposed to add a further safeguard. This Amendment would afford some little guidance to County Councils and the Local Government Board with respect to the principles upon which they ought to give their consent to loans. He was anxious that these authorities should have a full statement before them of the total indebtedness of the parish area before giving their consent to additional loans, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the first part of the Amendment, even if he could not accept the Amendment as a whole. The second part of the Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman would see, provided that where it should appear from the statement that the sum to be borrowed, together with the balances or share of the balances of all the outstanding loans chargeable on the parish or part of it, would exceed the assessable value for one year of the premises assessable within the parish in respect of which the money might be borrowed, the Local Government Board should not give their consent to such loan without inquiry and report. The provision as to the inquiry was taken from the 134th section of the Public Health Act of 1875, which, however, related only to sanitary loans. He thought these provisions might reasonably be included in the Bill, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to adopt them.

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the Sub-section."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would point out that the Local Government Board never sanctioned a local loan without holding an inquiry, and they would certainly satisfy themselves as to the indebtedness of a parish before they sanctioned a loan. He objected to statutory conditions like those proposed in the Amendment, which would hamper both the Local Government Board and the County Council, and cause delay as well as confusion. It would be a very unwise step to take in regard to questions of finance.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, the right hon. Gentleman's argument might apply to the second part of the Amendment, but he would, perhaps, say whether he could not accept the first part?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, any statutory condition was objectionable with regard to the carrying out of business.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the last Amendment was a statutory condition.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was as to limiting amount, but not as to procedure.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he thought the County Councils, at any rate, required a little guidance, and some general rule might be laid down to facilitate their task.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, he thought it would be an improvement to the Bill if they took the words in the first part of the Amendment down to " Local Authority."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could not accept any part of the Amendment.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, in that case he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

SIR R. PAGET

said, he begged to move to leave out Sub-section 2. This sub-section authorised the County or District Council to lend to a Parish Council any money which the Parish Council were authorised to borrow, and, if necessary, without the sanction of the Local Government Board, and irre- spectively of any limit of borrowing, to raise the money by loan, and so forth. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was doing the Parish Councils a wrong by enabling them to borrow money so readily. The right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that a facility for borrowing money was an evil whether in respect of individuals or Corporations. The result was to lead borrowers into trouble. There was no doubt that the difficulties which had occurred in Australia of late were largely due to fatal facilities for borrowing, and in even our experiences there were instances of people being led astray by the tempting advertisements of the money-lenders. He did not think it could be held to be a good principle that money should be borrowed easily, especially under the conditions and circumstances which would be operative under this Bill. He could well understand that there might be many enthusiastic people who desired to follow out schemes of their own, being convinced that the expenditure of large sums of money on such schemes would be a great advantage to everybody concerned. If he recollected aright, the Local Government Act of 1888 contained no provision analogous to this. The subject was indeed discussed in 1888, and a strong expression of opinion was given on both sides, and they would do wrong if they carried proposals of this kind. He could not but remind the Committee that at this moment the debts of Local Authorities reached the enormous sum of £201,000,000. Much of this debt would probably not have been incurred if such easy methods of raising money by loan had not been provided by the Legislature. The sub-section as it stood was the more objectionable from the absence of provision for local inquiry. In his view there should at least be power on the part of a certain number of owners and ratepayers to make representations to the Parish Councils, and request that a local inquiry should be held. Some restriction of a substantial character was surely necessary. If they wished the Parish Councils to be economical and to practice true economy, they were certainly doing wrong in affording these facilities for borrowing money to an unlimited extent. By them they were tempting them into the very extravagance which it was desired to avoid.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 23, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Sir R. Paget.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It seems to me that the arguments now adduced by the hon. Baronet are inconsistent with those he has put forward earlier in the Debate. His aim has hitherto been—as he has told us—to keep down the expenses of the Parish Council, and to reduce the rates to the smallest possible amount. In fact, we have thought he was seeking to unduly limit the area of expenditure. But now when the Parish Council, with the sanction of the County Council, wish to borrow money, he desires, by his Amendment, to compel them to go into the dearest market to pay the highest rates of interest, and to incur a variety of expenses. The object of the Government is, on the other hand, to let the Parish Councils have the advantage of modern legislation, which has been adopted not only by London, but by all our great Municipalities. Parliament has recognised for years that a large and powerful Local Authority can borrow at a much lower rate of interest than a smaller and insignificant authority. The hon. Baronet's own county can, no doubt, borrow money at 3 per cent., but a single parish in that county would probably have to pay 5 per cent., and the object of this sub-section is to allow the County Council to lend the money if it chooses —there is no compulsion—and to charge a small additional percentage such as is done by the Public Works Loans Commissioners. The parish would thus get the money at a lower rate than if it went into the market itself. I have during this Session passed many Provisional Orders which have conferred that power; the Police and Sanitary Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for West Derby, has adopted a like policy. Parliament has conferred these powers again and again, London has had the advantage of it for many years to its great pecuniary benefit, and all we now ask the Committee is to let the County Council lend money to the Parish Council on the cheapest terms and on the simplest and most inexpensive plan. I hope the hon. Baronet will not press his Amendment. Sufficient safeguards are provided in the matter of authorising the Parish Council to borrow, and it cannot be necessary to reiterate them in the provision allowing the County Council to lend to the Parish Council which has got leave to borrow. In the interests of economy the Parish Council should be allowed to borrow in the cheapest market.

SIR R. PAGET

said, it was all very well to suggest that the County Council could borrow money at the lowest rate, but if it got into the habit of lending to Parish and District Councils it would soon exhaust its credit. Again, he did not approve of the suggestion that the County Council should lend money at a profit to itself.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is to cover the necessary expenses.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he certainly did not appreciate the idea of County Councils becoming money-lenders.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

They need not charge a commission unless they like. A generous County Council, perhaps, would not do it. I was only suggesting that with a view to protecting the county ratepayers. Seeing that a Government Department does that very thing, and charges a commission of, I think, l–8th per cent., I do not agree that it would be a discreditable policy on the part of the County Council.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the proposal was a very dangerous one. If there were 500 parishes in a county, and each one wanted to borrow of the County Council, the amount required would be enormous, and it would be difficult to refuse one application without refusing the whole. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, this matter, if approached from a practical point of view, bore a very different complexion from the one he had placed upon it.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

asked if the borrowing powers of the County Council would be limited by the security of the parish? The Local Government Board ought to have some control over the borrowing powers of the County Council; they certainly ought not to be unlimited.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

A County Council is allowed to borrow up to a certain limit for the purposes of its own expenditure. That creates a liability upon its own ratepayers. If it sees fit to exercise the powers of this sub-section it will be able to borrow upon the security of the rates of the parish as well as upon its own rates, and the security will be a perfectly safe one. I must assume that the Councils are neither children nor fools; and, further, that they are not inferior to the Municipal Corporations of the country, which have acted on these lines for 60 or 70 years. The hon. Baronet is putting the County Councils in leading strings. Are they not to be trusted even on a little financial operation of this sort? Where the security is unimpeachable the public are often not aware of that fact, and in the case of the smaller Public Bodies who desire to borrow a boon will be conferred by permitting the County Council to lend them the money at probably l½ per cent. less than they themselves could get it.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he understood the sub-section to mean that the Parish Councils would be able to borrow in the cheapest market. There was nothing beyond that?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Nothing.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman talked of imposing leading strings upon the County Councils he forgot the last words of the sub-section— Subject to any further conditions which the Local Government Board may by general or special order impose. The right hon. Gentleman's own observations constituted an effective argument against the retention of those words. But he had a further objection to raise. The Local Government Board was to be at liberty to impose conditions, whereas the money was to be borrowed of the County Council without the sanction of the Local Government Board. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] The subsection provided that the County Council might lend the money without the sanction of the Local Government Board, and how was the latter body to be in a position to impose conditions and issue a special Order if it had no knowledge of what was happening. Again, if only General Orders were to be issued, the Committee ought now to be informed of their nature.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No Parish Council can borrow a sovereign without the consent of the Local Government Board. As to the conditions to be imposed, they will be such as are usually imposed when one authority borrows from another.

MR. HANBURY

said, the fact remained that the County Council might lend without the consent of the Local Government Board. How could that body issue a special Order?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Parish Council cannot borrow without the superior authority knowing all about it. It is one and the same operation. If I borrow from the hon. Gentleman, and he lends to me, I do not borrow without his knowledge.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he thought his hon. Friends behind him were unduly anxious on this matter. This was purely an enabling clause. It was simply a provision that if the Parish Council desired to borrow, having first got the consent of the Local Government Board, the County Council should be allowed to lend the money, and then if the County Council desired to borrow money in order to lend to the Parish Council it could do so subject to certain conditions imposed by the Local Government Board. This was a useful enabling clause, and it would be inconsistent to the arguments used on the first clause if they rejected this sub-section.

SIR R. PAGET

I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the County Council would borrow on the security not only of the parish rate, but of the county rate.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The parish would be included in the county. The county would borrow upon its undoubted solvency.

SIR R. PAGET

said, it seemed to him that the county would lend to the parish on an inferior security. It would have to borrow on the security of the county rate, and it would lend on the security of the parish rate. And more than that, it could lend without the sanction of the Local Government Board.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The County Council may lend to the Parish Council any money which the Parish Council is authorised to borrow, and may, if necessary, raise money for the purpose subject to certain conditions.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, it would be clearly an advantage to the Parish Council to borrow the money of the County Council. It was simply an enabling clause, and he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Clause 12 (Footpaths and roads.)

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 35, after the word " Council," to insert the words, "and of the District Council."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

MR. HANBURY

asked if those words were necessary, and if Clause 24 did not cover the point?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Under the existing law a highway cannot be stopped except with the consent of the Vestry or Highway Board, and we are proposing to transfer the highway jurisdiction to the District Council. We, therefore, think the consent of the District Council as well as the Parish Council should be required for the stopping up a right of way.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

asked if all restrictions in these matters were retained would there still be the application to two Justices and the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, his desire was to make the closing of a highway as difficult as possible.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We must substitute some consenting authority for the Highway Authority; hence the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 36, after the word" stopping," to insert the words " or diversion."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

MR. HANBURY

pointed out that in the Act of 1835 this was further limited by dealing with the limits of the proposed diversion. It was quite possible a highway might be stopped so far as the road was concerned, and that a bridle or footway might still be left open.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, After the word "diversion," to insert the words " either entirely or reserving a bridle way or footway along the whole or any part or parts thereof."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

As we are merely substituting the Parish Council for the Vestry and the District Council for the Highway Authority, and as we transfer all their existing powers in this matter I do not think this Amendment is necessary. At any rate, this is a very abstruse question of highway law, and I should like to look further into the matter before I accept these words.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought it would have been much better if, instead of making what was practically a new Statute, the Government had simply provided that the Parish Council should have the same powers as the Vestry.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is purely a drafting Amendment to which I promise careful consideration; I cannot do more now.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COZENS-HARDY (Norfolk, N.)

said, the Amendment which he had to propose dealt with a very small point, but one of considerable importance in many parishes. There were many so-called private roads in country districts leading to cottages which were in a disgraceful state of disrepair to an extent that prevented the children who lived in the cottages from attending school. He thought that the Parish Councils should have the power of repairing such roads, and he hoped therefore that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would see the reasonableness of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 5, after the word " maintenance, ' to insert the words " of any highway not repairable at the public expense, and." — (Mr. Cozens-Hardy.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

thought that the Parish Council ought not to undertake the repairs of private roads simply because people chose to have cottages at the roadside.

MR. W. LONG

The Amendment reads "may," not "shall."

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

rejoined, that "may" was very likely to become "shall," and he certainly could not understand why they should undertake any liability in regard to private roads.

MR. W. LONG

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend, because he felt that the Amendment dealt with a real difficulty which existed in many rural districts. The powers given by it it were only enabling and not compulsory. Many of these so-called private roads were used by a number of different proprietors, while there was no authority having the power to repair them.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

They are occupation roads.

MR. W. LONG

said, they were called by a variety of names. It was most desirable that they should be repaired by someone.

SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to him that it would simply transfer to a Public Authority the duties which properly belonged to private individuals. He knew of the case of a road two miles long now repaired by private owners, who would probably be relieved of that burden if the parish were granted the power to undertake the repairs of such roads. Why should this be done?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No doubt the power conferred by the Amendment would be an advantageous power, but it is not the intention of the Government to throw upon the Parish Councils the burden of repairing these roads, which are not now repairable at the expense of the community. Under the existing law owners can be made to bear a proportionate share of the expense of repairing roads not repairable by the Highway Authority, but if this Amendment were carried there would be some danger that by dint of pressure brought to bear upon it from outside the Parish Council would be induced to relieve private owners of that liability. Further than that, it is not intended to constitute the Parish Council a Highway Authority in any sense, and I, therefore, cannot agree to impose this burden upon it.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked the last sub-section of the clause, which proposed to enact that— A Parish Council may, subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to restrictions on expenditure, undertake the repair and maintenance of all or any of the footpaths within their parish, but this power shall not prejudice the obligation of any other authority or person with respect to such repair or maintenance. These words seemed sufficient protection against an abuse of the power by the Parish Council, and those who were already liable ratione tenurœ for the repair of a road would still be subject to the burden. But there were numbers of cases of roads which had never been repaired, and which it was most desirable in the public interest to repair, and these were the cases in which the Parish Council, knowing as it did the local circumstances, might well look after. Providing that the clause did not prejudice existing obligations on the part of any person, he thought that the Amendment, while it could do no harm, might in many cases effect a great deal of good.

MR. TOMLINSON

contrasted the position of the Rural Sanitary Authority with that of the Urban Sanitary Authority, and pointed out that before the latter took over the control of a road it could insist on its being placed in proper repair. He suggested that in cases affected by this Amendment the roads or footpaths ought to be put into repair before the burden of repairing them was thrown upon the community.

MR. STOREY

agreed with the hon. Member for Preston, but pointed out that if the roads or footpaths were put into a proper state of repair there was already a proper authority who might take them over and repair them.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, there were many cases where the parish would gladly undertake the repair of the road, and where the District Authority would not admit the necessity for the repair. He was amazed to find how this question had divided the House. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be trusting to the wisdom and discretion of the Justices as against the Councils which they were setting up. He did not believe that any Parish Council would be so foolish as to undertake the repair of roads for the maintenance of which others could be made liable. But there were many cases in which no one could be made liable, and therefore the Amendment would give a most valuable power to the Parish Councils.

MR. COZENS-HARDY

said, that in moving the Amendment nothing was further from his intention than the desire to relieve anybody now responsible at the expense of the Parish Council. He merely wished to provide for the many cases which were now unprovided for. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would see, before a later stage of the Bill, the necessity of some such provision, but at present he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said that, although there was a great deal to be urged in favour of constituting the parish the Highway Authority, there was much to be said against it. It was most important not to set up two Highway Authorities in competition with one another. The duty must rest either with the Parish Council or the District Council, and the Committee must clearly decide which should undertake it. The hon. Member for Thirsk, with whom he usually agreed, had urged sound grounds why the parish should be the Highway Authority, and when the proper time came to deal with that point he would be glad to listen to his arguments with a predisposition to be convinced by them. But as long as they were not endowing the Parish Council with highway duties, he thought the Amendment out of place.

MR. JESSE COLLLNGS

said, the discussion showed the difficulty of understanding why the sub-section had been introduced into the Bill. Under Clause 24 they were transferring the power of the Highway Authorities to the District Councils, while in this sub-section they were giving highway powers to Parish Councils. The chances were that between the two the work would not be done at all. It would be necessary to confine the operations of the Parish Councils to matters outside the purview of the Highway Acts if they wished to prevent a confusion which would be most prejudicial to the smooth working of the new machinery.

MAJOR DARWIN

asked how the Amendment would affect the footpaths running alongside the high road? Would the Parish Council be obliged to keep them in repair? He understood the definition of "road " included footpaths, but there was no definition of the word in the Bill, and he thought it should be made clear that the Parish Councils were not required to attend to footpaths forming part of a road already maintained by a Local Authority.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Sir R. PAGET, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 10, line 5, to insert before the word " footpaths," the word " public.

MR. HANBURY moved to insert, after the word "footpaths," in line 5, the words "not being footpaths beside a public road." He said that it had not been made clear whether or not such footpaths were included in the clause as it stood.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 5, after the word " footpaths," to insert the words "not being footpaths beside a public road."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not see the necessity for the introduction of these words. I understand that it is quite clear that the footpaths mentioned in the clause do not include the footpaths referred to in the Amendment, which are already attended to.

SIR E. WEBSTER

thought that some definition was required, as the clause clearly contemplated some road being repaired which somebody else had the obligation to repair.

MR. STOREY

said, that there was no necessity for the insertion of the words, as there was no question that footpaths by the side of public roads were under the Highway Authority. But the Parish Council might not be satisfied with the attention given to the footpaths by the Highway Authority, and in such a case it ought to be at liberty, for the benefit of the parish, to improve a path which had been properly repaired by the Highway Authority.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought there was one point that was not made clear by the verbiage of the clause, and that was that it would be contrary to the law of the land for a Parochial Authority to put down asphalt or macadam on a footpath, and thereby cause a severance through an arable field which was liable to be ploughed out. He hoped the defect would be remedied.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, he desired to ask the Solicitor General whether a footpath following a road was really part of the highway. In the West Riding of Yorkshire under the old system the Magistrates declined to repair these footpaths, but the County Council were now repairing them, and he therefore wished to know which authority was right?

SIR J. RIGBY

No one has a right to interfere with the paths referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet but the owners of the land.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FULLER (Wiltshire, Westbury) moved to add the words "and footbridges " to the last Amendment. Though "footbridges" might be included in "footpaths," he thought it better for clearness sake to insert "footbridges."

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 5, after the word "footpaths," to insert the words ''and footbridges."— (Mr. Fuller.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

SIR J. RIGBY

I must object to the addition of the words on the ground that they are unnecessary, and may lead to difficulties.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he concurred with the Solicitor General. His distinct opinion was that footpath included any footbridge which formed part of it, and it would be well not to interfere with the general terms of the section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS moved to insert in the Section— In line 5, after " parish," the words " together with the gates and stiles in connection therewith. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the Parish Council might undertake the repair of gates and stiles in connection with footpaths. In the neighbourhood of many towns the gates and stiles along a country walk were of such a kind, or in such a condition, that ladies and elderly persons, at any rate, were prevented from using the foot paths.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 5, after the word " parish," to insert the words " together with the gates and stiles in connection therewith."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)

Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."

SIR J. RIGBY

I can only repeat what I stated in reference to the last Amendment. It would be far better for the purpose in view to leave the section in its present form.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, he hoped the Committee would not go too far into those details, and lay down laws or conditions which might prove to be unwise and inconvenient. He thought those matters might well be left to the common sense of the people and the usages of the country.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, this question as to the repair of footpaths was a very serious matter, for as it meant the advertising for specifications and the appointment of contractors, it would throw a duty on the Parish Council which the Parish Council would not be able to discharge.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We do not contemplate specifications and contractors in this matter. It is a very small matter, and might well be left to the common sense of the Parish Council.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he did not know how they were to give to the Parish Council the right to repair footpaths crossing fields. Would the Parish Council have a right to demand an entrance into a field in order to get access to a footpath for the purpose of making repairs?

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY

said, that those paths might run across arable fields, and any attempt to make them permanent by asphalt or macadam would destroy the fields. He, therefore, trusted that the Amendment would be rejected.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, it would be unwise for several reasons to insert the words proposed. He agreed with his hon. and gallant Friend behind him that the Local Authority would have no right to asphalt a pathway running through a field.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said, that in many cases it was the custom of the parishes at certain times (especially in the winter months) to repair the paths in order to keep the poor employed, regardless of the authority which might be legally bound to repair them. He therefore moved the introduction in line 6, after the word " not," of the words " nor the exercise thereof," which would have the effect of maintaining this obligation unimpaired.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 6, after the word " not," to insert the words " nor the exercise thereof."— (Mr. Bousfield.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he did not think the words were necessary.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the introduction of the words might do good. For instance, if a parish repaired the paths it might be said, if these words were not inserted, that the obligation of the other authority to keep the paths in order no longer existed.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*MR. T. H. BOLTON moved— In page 10, line 6, to leave out the words "prejudice the obligation of," and insert the word "relieve. He thought "prejudice the obligation of" was a novel and unvalued phrase, and that the form he suggested expressed more clearly what was intended to be conveyed.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 6, to leave out the words "prejudice the obligation of," and insert the word "relieve."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

SIR J. RIGBY

I do not think there is any difficulty about "prejudice the obligation of;" but as the words suggested are more simple and plain we may accept them.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. T. H. BOLTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 10, line 7, after the word "person,' to insert the words "from any liability.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tewkesbury would, I think, come more conveniently on Clause 24.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

I am afraid that if we wait till Clause 24, the opportunity for moving the Amendment will be lost.

THE CHAIRMAN

I notice the hon. Baronet has put down similar Amendments to both clauses.

SIR J. DORINGTON

The Amendments put down to Clause 24 are consequential on this Amendment.

SIR R. WEBSTER

This Amendment proposes to enable the Parish Councils to undertake certain duties with regard to the highways in their district in cases where there are at present Highway Authorities, and it appears to me, with all due respect to your ruling, Mr. Mellor, that this is the stage for the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that it might be more convenient on Clause 24; but the hon. Baronet is entitled to move now.

SIR J. DORINGTON

then moved to add at the end of the clause this subsection— (3) When, at the time of the passing of this Act, a surveyor appointed by a parish Vestry is the Highway Authority, or whenever, by virtue of the provisions of any Act of Parliament, and of any Order of the Court of Quarter Sessions, or of the County Council, or of the Local Government Board, a parish becomes entitled to appoint a highway surveyor, the Parish Council, or, where there is no Parish Council, the parish meeting, shall execute the office of and be the Highway Authority for the parish, and all Ministerial acts required by any Act of Parliament to be done by or to the surveyor of highways may be done by the surveyor of such Parish Authority or by or to any other person as they may appoint, and notwithstanding any restrictions in this Act contained with respect to the levying of rates, they shall levy a highway rate for the repair of highways and foot ways within their parish. The President of the Local Government Board had said a few minutes previously that it was proposed by the Bill to transfer the Highways to the District Councils. That was his justification for moving the Amendment at that place, for it was only at that place that the matter could be properly dealt with, and the subject was far too large to pass over, changing as it did the whole highway jurisdiction of England. Practically, it was now proposed to bring into a Parish Councils Bill a whole Highway Bill, and a change of that kind should be fully considered before it was adopted. He was not an opponent of large areas for highway management; they were highly beneficial, and were what ought to be aimed at. But, by the great change made in 1888, under the Local Government Act, they had gone beyond the bounds of the rural sanitary districts, and had got a much better area in their county, and as that administration, by counties, was growing from year to year, they ought to wait to see what would come of it before they took this step of setting up a highly-organised second body called the District Council to stand between the County Council and the parish. By the Bill all highway matters not relating to main roads were transferred to the District Councils. By this Amendment and the Amendments to Clause 24, which were consequential, he proposed to leave things as they were at present, and to retain the power either of enlarging the highway areas or of dissolving the existing areas and putting an end to them altogether. He had had considerable experience of what had already been done in this matter. In his own county, taking advantage of the Act of 1888, they undertook the management of all the main roads—a thousand miles in extent—of that county, and had derived great benefit from the change. In order that the position of affairs might be clearly understood, he would give a brief history of highway legislation. Before 1862 all the highways, with a few exceptions, were maintained by the parishes. In 1862 and in 1864, by two Acts, called the Highway Districts Acts, opportunities were afforded of creating Highway Boards by parishes joining together, so that they might have a common surveyor and a common staff, and have much better management of the highways than if the parishes acted individually, whilst the expenditure in each parish was still borne by the parish. To some extent, the highway districts thus created supplied a popularly felt want. At this time the turnpike trusts began to expire, and the cost of their roads being thrown on the separate parishes became a great grievance till 1870, when, by a change in the law, the expenses paid by individual parishes towards the cost of the turnpike roads were thrown over the whole district. In 1878 came the Highways and Locomotion Amendment Act, which made another great change. Parliament then, recognising the great burden cast upon separate parishes by these turnpike roads, decided that one-half the expenses of those roads should be thrown upon the whole county, and a certain amount of county control was given over the roads. At the same time another change was made, unfortunately for the parishes, and that was that the whole cost of the parish roads incurred by any parish was thrown over the whole area of the district. On paper that looked well, but it was not satisfactory in practice, because the small parish roads were roads in which the general public took no interest, and when any question of their improvement came before the Highway Board they were neglected, as the other parishes would not join in any expenses to meet mere local requirements. That was a strong argument against the proposal in the Bill. The interest in small parish roads was confined to a very limited area, and, therefore, large bodies would leave them unattended to. In the formation of these highway districts the area of the Union was taken in some cases, but in the majority of cases a much smaller area was taken, because the organisation created was not capable of dealing with large areas. In the Act of 1888 there was provision made that where highway districts were coterminous the Rural Sanitary Authority might take over the powers and the duties of the Highway Boards. That looked quite right and proper; but as only 41 authorities had taken advantage of the provision, it would be seen that it had not been very effective or very useful. Considering that they began as far back as 1862 to constitute highway districts, under the impression that that was the right way of managing high roads, there had certainly been sufficient time, if the system was a good one, to carry it all over England as a great forward step. Nothing of the sort had happened. There were more parishes now repairing their own roads separately than there were in 1879. In 1879 there were 5,868 separate parishes maintaining their highways; by the last accounts there were now 6,501. The tendency of public opinion in the districts affected clearly had been adverse to highway districts. He was not opposed to highway districts. On the contrary, he thought they were excellent things; but, in his opinion, they had now found a better way, both as regarded efficiency and economy, and he would not set upon foot a second paid agency, largely official, which would stand in the way of the full development of management by the County Authorities. They were spending at the present time on parish roads £1,289,000, and on main roads £940,000. The main roads, as far as he could make out, were only about one-fifth of the parish roads. They cost a great deal more, and that showed how much more largely they carried the traffic of the county than did the parish roads. The parish roads were apparently maintainable at about £12, whereas the cost of the others was about £40. Another remarkable fact with regard to the main roads was the extent to which they were increasing. In the year before the County Councils came into power, there were 17,000 miles of main roads; now there were over 20,000, and the accessible Returns only come down to the second year of the County Councils. In the second year of County Council administration the mileage of main roads directly managed by the Councils doubled itself, showing that the system was a popular and growing one. He had been able to ascertain that, while there were 26 counties directly managing their main roads, not through Highway Boards, but by their own agencies in 1891, there were now 32 counties in that position. Now, by this Bill they proposed to constitute, in the face of this rapidly-changing and developing system, a second new system of highway management, which would be an absolute block and bar to the further extension of County Council roads. If they were to take the direction indicated by the Bill, they ought to go a great deal further and at once destroy the county administration, and place all the main roads, as well as the district roads, in the hands of the District Council. Because it was quite obvious that it was not advisable to have two official bodies to do the work which could very well be done by one. In France, where the roads were exceedingly well managed, there were three classes of roads—Imperial, departmental (corresponding to the English county), and parish—nothing between the department and the commune, and he could not conceive why in this country it was necessary to set up any other Road Authority between the county and the parish. The main roads are certain to be maintained in the best possible manner, owing to the highly skilled assistance available by the County Council, and it was best to leave the small parish roads to the Parish Councils. It might be said that the parishes would not properly attend to their roads. But the contrary was the fact, for in many counties the parishes were so dissatisfied with the Highway Boards that they abandoned them, and returned to the old parish management. But if the parishes did not do their duty—if there were parish roads left neglected in which the general public had an interest, the general public could, under the Act of 1878, make a complaint to the County Council; and all the County Council had to do was to issue an order to the parish to repair the roads, and in the event of the order being neglected, have the road repaired by their own surveyor and charge the parish with the cost. He believed that in the interest of economy and good administration, it was essential to have only two organisations — the county organisation, and the parish organisation— Under his Amendment matters would be left as they were at present, the object being to constitute the Parish Council the Highway Authority where the Parish Surveyor was now the Highway Authority, and to clothe the Quarter Sessions with the same powers, either to create or to dissolve highway districts in the future as in the past. It was perfectly certain that two paid organisations could not be set up alongside one another without great waste, and if they wanted economy and good management every authority must at every moment be director of its own finance, and not delegate its powers to some other authority. It does not do for a Public Authority to part with its control. Under such a system no one knew who was responsible. In a county only one person should be responsible for main roads, and he was the county surveyor, with the County Council at his back. He hoped, therefore, that the matter would be carefully considered before they committed themselves to a system which might prove a barrier to the extension of the present better and more efficient organisation.

Amendment proposed, In page 10, line 7, at end, add the following sub-section:—"(3) When, at the time of the passing of this Act, a surveyor appointed by a parish Vestry is the Highway Authority, or whenever, by virtue of the provisions of any Act of Parliament, and of any Order of the Court of Quarter Sessions, or of the County Council, or of the Local Government Board, a parish becomes entitled to appoint a highway surveyor, the Parish Council, or, where there is no Parish Council, the parish meeting, shall execute the office of and be the Highway Authority for the parish, and all ministerial acts required by any Act of Parliament to be done by or to the surveyor of highways may be done by the surveyor of such Parish Authority or by or to any other person as they may appoint, and notwithstanding any restrictions in this Act contained with respect to the levying of rates, they shall levy a highway rate for the repair of highways and footways within their parish."—(Sir J. Dorington.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I regret that the hon. Baronet has moved this Amendment now. No doubt the Chairman has said that it was in Order to qualify the powers of the Parish Councils to this extent, but we look to the Bill as a whole, and one of the main features of the Bill is the establishment of District Councils, and to that part of the Bill we will determinedly and unreservedly adhere. Amongst the various duties which we propose to entrust to the District Councils is the management of the highways. Without in any way deprecating the arguments which the hon. Baronet so well and so fairly and justly brought before the Committee, strengthened as they were by his very great local experience, I submit that the proper time to raise this great question is when Clause 24 is before the Committee, inasmuch as that clause transfers to the District Councils the management of highways. But it is now raised, and we must deal with it now. The proposal of the hon. Baronet is inconsistent with what has been held by local government reformers for the last 30 or 40 years. It is inconsistent with recommendations of Committees of this House. It is inconsistent with the action of the late Government in their Bill of 1888. The hon. Baronet practically proposes that we should go back to 1835. In 1835 the parish was reorganised for the purpose of fulfilling its Common Law duty of repairing the highways within its district, and by the Act of 1835 the parish was empowered to elect a surveyor for that purpose. In 1862 Parliament, dissatisfied with the working of the parochial system, changed that system and gave an option to the Local Authorities to form Highway Boards. Upwards of 8,000 parishes on account of the great convenience of the change were incorporated into Highway Board districts. More or less that organisation remains to the present day. In 1875 Parliament went one step further, and took out of the counties the various Local Urban Authorities and constituted them Highway Authorities, and the large number of small Urban Authorities that now exist is due to the fact that they deliberately adopted the urban system with all its expense and increased taxation in order to get out of the parochial system and have their own highways managed under the Act of 1875. In 1878 a Committee of the , House sat upon a great many questions connected with local government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was Chairman of that Committee, and my right hon. Friends the Member for the Forest of Dean and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were Members of it. That Committee reported that, whenever practicable, the powers of Highway Boards should be transferred to Boards of Guardians or Rural Sanitary Authorities. That is exactly the pro- -position that is made in this Bill. The Rural Sanitary Authority is to become the District Council, and is the authority to whom the roads are proposed to be transferred. In 1878, when a Conservative Government was in power, the present Lord Basing, who was then President of the Local Government Board, brought in a Bill which provided for the transfer of highways from the smaller to the larger authority where the districts are coterminous.

SIR J. DORINGTON

That was only permissive.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am under the impression that it was also compulsory, but I accept the hon. Baronet's view. By Clause 46 of the Bill of 1888 as it was introduced it was proposed to transfer to the District Council of each rural district all the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Highway Board; and, with some slight alterations in the drafting, we are following the precedent set by Mr. Ritchie, who was unable to complete his District Council scheme. That scheme contemplated the Rural Sanitary Authority to take charge of the highways, and we propose to do precisely the same thing. I do not pretend for a moment that there is not a great deal to be said against that proposal. This highway question has been the difficult question of all local government reformers for many years past. Possibly, the suggestion of the hon. Baronet if adopted might be some improvement on the present system, for he proposes that the Parish Councils shall appoint the surveyor of the parish, and we might get rid of an incompetent officer such as the parish surveyor has generally been. ["No, no!"] I repeat that in a great number of cases the parish surveyor has been an incompetent officer. My own experience has been that in a great many parishes the surveyorship has gone round the parish. Farmers have been elected as surveyors, and have repaired the roads in their own immediate locality, and have purchased stones from themselves or from their friends, and consequently the roads were bad. Perhaps the House of Lords is an authority that will be listened to on the other side. Well, a Committee of the House of Lords has reported that the opponents of the parochial system asserted that the roads were imperfectly maintained, that the materials for their repair were selected for their cheapness without regard to their durability, that the management was entrusted to men who might be changed every year, that the small size of many parishes rendered them unfit for any administrative functions, and that in some cases the parish roads did not give full employment to one able-bodied labourer. There are reasons why the present system has not been a satisfactory one. It has been ineffective in producing that care of local roads which it is desirable to establish, and it is desirable that where works or road-making has to be carried on there should be a larger area and a larger administrative staff. As the hon. Baronet has pointed out, the County Council have succeeded by their possession of an experienced staff. It has been said that the County Council is too large an area. I should be dishonest were I to say that I entirely agree with that view. Indeed, I should not be sorry to see the County Council made the Road Authority. But Parliament has not thought itself justified to take that step. When we come to Clause 24 this question will no doubt have to be fully discussed again. Perhaps on that occasion I may have to trouble the House at greater length on the question than now. I can assure the hon. Baronet, however, that we look upon the transfer of the management of highways to the District Council as an essential portion of the functions which these Councils ought to perform; and unless stronger reasons can be urged against our proposal, we will follow in the footsteps of the Local Government reforms of 1862, 1875, 1878, and of the late Government in 1888, and adhere to this proposal as an essential part of the scheme.

MR. W. LONG

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had not objected to the Amendment in any terms of an absolutely hostile character, and had indicated that he would be prepared to discuss the question again when they came to Clause 24. But the right hon. Gentleman had found some fault with the hon. Baronet, than whom there was no higher authority on all questions of county government for bringing forward the Amendment at this stage. But he could not understand how the Amendment could possibly be introduced in Clause 24. That clause proposed, what the late Government had proposed in their Bill of 1888, to transfer the existing powers of the Highway Authorities to the new District Councils who were to be their successors. What his hon. Friend proposed to do by this Amendment was to make provision in cases where the powers of the Highway Authorities had been largely diminished or had practically ceased to exist. In 1888 the late Government proposed to confer on County Councils the right to take over the control of the roads, believing that it was the only means of enabling those bodies to have actual and real control over the Highway Boards. The result of the powers conferred by the legislation of 1888 was that many of the County Councils had stepped in and had become themselves the administrators, the Highway Boards having practically ceased to have enough work to do. The right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that the late Government did not in their legislation deal with the Parish Councils. The right hon. Gentleman was, in this Bill, bringing into existence Parish Councils, first and foremost, and making them the Local Bodies. He believed that the Act of 1888 had practically formed a new departure to which this Bill was a natural corollary. The Government would do well to give every facility, at all events, in the Bill for the Parish Council to act as the sub ordinate authority of the County Council The right hon. Gentleman said that, upon the whole, he approved of the County Council becoming the Road Maintaining Authority for the whole county. That was a principle which at the time of the Bill of the late Government he (Mr. Long) did not believe in, but he confessed he believed in it now. He believed the County Council was the best authority to take over the main- tenance of the roads in a county. He believed they could do the work with greater economy, command a better staff, and they had practically all the country open to them to go to for the supply of the metal they required for the repair of the roads and the various requirements which, as a Road Repairing Authority, were necessary for them. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the time was not quite ripe for a reform so complete at this moment, nor was this the Bill which could be made the engine for effecting such a reform. But he would point out that the Amendment of the Member for the Tewkesbury Division did not go so far as that, and if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept it, he would do nothing which would be an injury to the present system of Highway Boards —which were to become District Boards —but he would enable real difficulties to be met which would otherwise constantly arise after the passing of the Bill, and which would make confusion worse confounded. Unless they introduced machinery enabling the new Parish Councils to do the duties which they wished to do as the parish Highway Authorities, which would practically now devolve upon them when the Highway Boards disappeared, they would find a state of confusion existing for which no provision had been made. If the Amendment were accepted by the Government it would not prejudice their position one iota and they could hereafter ask Parliament to come to a decision on the whole question of the maintenance of roads and highways. But if they did not accept some Amendment of this kind and follow the course followed by Parliament in 1888, but which the passing of the Act of that year had materially altered, the Government would find they had placed some of these Local Authorities in very great difficulties and left some portion of their work uncompleted. He would fain hope that there was some chance of the right hon. Gentleman reconsidering this question. It was not a question of prejudice or one on which there was any great formation of opinion on one side or the other. A great deal of opinion was formed according to the experience gathered in individual towns. The practise varied, and so, therefore, did opinion with regard to the procedure. It was almost impossible to apply a hard-and-fast rule of Parliament to the various counties in England and Wales, they would do well to make the new Act of Parliament applying to these various and varying conditions as elastic, as wide, and as general as possible. He supported the proposal of his hon. Friend in the honest conviction that this Amendment would meet a real difficulty, and that without it they would on the other hand, create one, and he hoped the Government would see the desirability of adopting the proposal or one similar to it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Did I understand the hon. Member to say that the County Council had dealt with any other roads except main roads? I do not mean grants in aid.

MR. W. LONG

In the cases I was referring to the County Councils practically abolished the Highway Boards altogether, as being Boards unfit to do their work. I believe, in both cases, that the Highway Boards are practically dissolved and the Surveyors dismissed, the County Councils having taken over all the roads within their area except local roads.

SIR C. W. DILKE

agreed with all that had been said by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool, and he should not have risen but for the fact the hon. Member had not made use of one particular argument which tended largely to support his case. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had spoken of the Committee of 1875, upon which he (Sir C. Dilke) sat, but he now found that the right hon. Gentleman meant the Committee of 1878 on Poor Law Guardians. He (Sir C. Dilke) was not a Member of that Committee, but he was acquainted with their proceedings. That Committee did, indeed, recommend the change which this Bill made, but that was in days when there was no notion of the re-organisation of the parish. The Committee also made the recommendation on the specific ground— which they stated in their Report—that they desired to prevent the creation of a multiplicity of authorities, and to diminish their numbers. Of course that consideration no longer entered into the question at all. His right hon. Friend had described this Amendment as proposing to the House to go back to where Parliament stood in 1835. Of course, it did nothing of the kind. It proposed no retrograde action, but it rather asked them to leave their hands free, in order that they might be at liberty to adopt a more admirable system in the future. He wish to ask the Committee to remember how difficult it would be in many counties to apply these provisions, or, indeed, any large local government provisions, to the districts which would be created by this Bill. There were a very large number of these districts which were of such peculiar and irregular shapes that, although it might be possible to keep them for existing sanitary purposes, it was most unlikely that anyone looking for a scientific system for the administration of highways would possibly choose such districts. There was one district in five detached pieces; two in four pieces, nine in three pieces, and 39 which were in two pieces. There were, therefore, at least 49 or 50 of these districts which were actually in several pieces. Almost all the districts were of peculiar shapes. In almost all cases they were not self-contained rural district in a ring fence, but they were districts with urban districts cut out of them, and were many of them of a peculiar and extraordinary shape, and certainly not good districts for the administration of highways. A great many of these rural urban districts which exercised the Highway Authority were merely rural parishes, and, as a matter of fact, were just as small and rural as many of the parishes which Lad Highway Authorities, and which were parochial. He admitted that the complicated districts in the Bill were the only districts which could be taken, but they were districts which were so very inappropriate for highway purposes that they should hold their hand for the moment and postpone any change in the present system, with a desire, in the long run, to adopt the county as the Highway Authority.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

was glad to find that there were hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House as well as on the other who desired to retain the parish surveyor and the parish administration of such roads as were within the limits of the parish. He himself had been communicated with from the district in which he lived by two bodies—one composed entirely of supporters of the Liberal Party, who had urged him to join in asking that the parishes might be allowed to continue the appointment of surveyors and the management of their own parish roads; and in the second place by the County Council of East Suffolk, who, after discussing the whole matter last week, passed, by a majority, a resolution expressing the desire that the parish surveyor might be retained in office. This general feeling of the County of Suffolk was founded on the teaching of the best of all schoolmasters—namely, experience. The Highway Board system was set up in Suffolk in the expectation of very good results, but after many years experience of the working of that system those Highway Boards were all dissolved by the consent of all parties, since, whilst the roads were not maintained so efficiently, the cost was greater than under the old parochial system. In Suffolk, the people preferred to be allowed to manage their own roads under the control of the County Council, through the agency of their parochial surveyors. Another powerful and urgent reason in favour of the retention of the parish surveyor was that the Parish Authorities were being reformed. Elective Representative Bodies were being introduced to control parish affairs, but at the same time they were excluding from the parish all those things in which the people of the parish naturally felt most interest. They had excluded already from Parish Councils all management of their ecclesiastical affairs, all management of their schools, and all control over the sale of intoxicating liquors; and now it was proposed that the very roads of the parish should be taken out of the hands of the Parish Authority and transferred to a comparatively distant authority. Surely this was the wrong time to propose this He believed that a Parish Authority stationed in the vicinity of the roads was the best body to be set to maintain them, since they could do it far more economically than any body which had no such immediate connection with the district. He strongly hoped that the Committee would see its way to allowing the parish to have full management of the parish roads.

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham)

said, in rising to say a few words on this question, he did so, not so much as a Member of the Government, as he did as Chairman of the County Council of Lancashire, and he must say that his experience was entirely different to that of his hon. Friend who had just spoken with respect to Suffolk. His experience of the management of parochial roads was that it was neither cheap nor good, and he thought that was the general opinion in his county. He had no doubt also that the same opinion was held in many other counties. He should like to place a few facts before the Committee in reference to this question. They had in Lancashire, under the County Council, about 600 miles of main roads, and owing to the present state of the law they had to deal with between 300 and 400 different Local Authorities. The great proportion of these Local Authorities were parish surveyors, and the consequence was that the County Council had had much difficulty and trouble in making their contracts from year to year with respect to the maintenance of the main roads, because their County Council had not done what had been suggested by the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool— namely, taken the main roads into their own hands. Some counties—probably one-third of the counties of England— had done so, and he believed they had found it very much to their advantage. The other two-thirds of the counties still carried on the roads through means of contracts with the different authorities. The result of experience in his county had led the County Council to promote the establishment of Highway Boards. There was no other means of getting over the difficulties connected with parochial management and of the county contracting with the Local Authorities except by establishing Highway Boards of which four had been so established during the last two or three years. He could speak particularly of one Highway Authority where he lived which he had the privilege of promoting and getting established about 12 years ago. In that district they had combined seven parishes, and altogether they had about 120 miles of roads. Before the Highway Board was established they had parochial management. The rates of one of the parishes was then 7d. in the £1; of the second 6½d., and of the third 6d., and now, 12 years after the establishment of the Board, the whole district had a general rate of 4d. in the £1, but what was far better even than the reduction of the rate the roads were in much better order than ever they were before. Why was that? It was because, instead of any parishes having Farmer A or Farmer B appointed year after year to manage the roads in his own particular parish, they had an able and qualified man to act as surveyor, who looked after the roads in the whole district. The consequence was that, although the farmers objected to the proposal when it was first made 12 years ago, they were now delighted with the change of the system which relieved them from the trouble and annoyance of looking after the roads, which were now in a much better condition than they were previously. He mentioned this to show the advantage of the management of roads over larger areas. Of course he could understand his hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury wishing to return to the old system.

SIR J. DORINGTON

I do not wish to return to the old system.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, it seemed to him very like the old system. It only transferred the repair of the parish roads to the Parish Council or the parish meeting, and though that would he better than to have the method of appointment which had existed up to the present time, the Parish Councils would still have either to appoint a competent man at considerable expense to look after the roads or else be obliged to have them managed by persons who probably did not understand much about road-making.

SIR J. DORINGTON

said, his point was that counties had done their duty in respect to main roads, and that parishes were capable of dealing with minor roads.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

thought the County Councils had power over minor roads if they chose to exercise it, as well as over main roads. There was a power in the Local Government Act of 1888, of giving grants in aid to other than main roads. That power they were exercising in Lancashire to a considerable extent. They had formed a system of secondary roads to which they contributed one-half of the expenditure, and over the whole county the County Council were spending something like £20,000 a year in grants in aid of these roads. By this means the County Council got control over the roads, and the system had answered very well. He expressed his satisfaction that the Bill should propose the transfer of the management of the roads to a larger area than that of a parish. He believed that though some Highway Boards might not have managed their roads satisfactorily, the management by a larger area was very much better than by a smaller area, for the reason that it enabled them to have qualified surveyors who looked after the roads, to have steam rollers for putting the roads into good order, and other advantages which could not be given when the administration was confined to a small area. He believed the desire of past Parliaments had often been to proceed in the direction now proposed by the Government, and that the effect of the proposal, if carried, would be to place the roads in a much better position than they had been in hitherto.

MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

said, he rose to support the Amendment. He contended that as they were creating Parish Councils under this Bill it would cause the greatest dissatisfaction to these new bodies if they were not to be allowed to have the management of the roads. If there was one thing more than another which an Englishman liked to have a finger in it was the control of the roads. He believed, therefore, they would be doing wrong if they did not give the new Parish Council the control over the roads. He had seen with great satisfaction the growing system of the County Council taking over the control of the roads within the area over which they ruled and in Durham—and he believed also in Yorkshire—the taking over of the roads by the County Council had been followed by most excellent results from every conceivable point of view. He believed the best plan for the future would be, instead of having an intervening authority on the part of the District Council, to let the County Council have control of as large an area of the roads as possible, and let the Parish Council, at any rate, try their hands in their own districts. If they proved inefficient, then the system could be changed; but, at all events, let them "flesh their maiden sword" on the parish roads within their control. He hoped the Amendment would be adopted.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he ventured to submit to the Committee a few considerations based upon his experience as Chairman of a rural County Council. He did not agree with the Secretary to the Treasury. In Lincolnshire Highway Boards were established, but by unanimous consent they were dissolved because they did not answer their purpose and were found to be expensive. The County Council had done what they thought best for the county. They had not only taken over main roads, but had contributed largely to the support of other roads. That system had worked extremely well, and the roads had undoubtedly been improved. He would like to ask the President of the Local Government Board to give a better trial to that system. Any attempt to secure theoretical symmetry in counties where there were grave differences in the circumstances would only result in failure.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

said, he was inclined to support the Amendment rather because it was permissive in its effect than because there would be any great advantage in keeping the Parish Authority permanently in favour.

MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON (Leicester, Loughborough)

said, he thought the Government ought to adhere to the position they had assumed. He had some experience in Lancashire, and he could say that the management of the roads was infinitely better in the hands of the District Council than in that of the parish itself. On the basis of economy the present method was the best. He hoped his right hon. Friend (Mr. Fowler) would adhere to his position in this matter.

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman ought to give the matter further consideration with a view to leaving the question to the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman said the hon. Baronet practically proposed that they should go back to 1835. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment would leave matters just where they were. Any changes that were necessary could be much better made by the County Councils, and he would urge that upon the Government.

MR. H. L. W. LAWSON (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, Lancashire could not be taken as a typical or average county in this matter. It was true to a certain extent that the larger the area the better the administration. The real way to approach it was to do nothing to obstruct the work of the County Councils In this way it was possible to arrive at a scientific method. He quoted the example of the County of Gloucester, and said that his desire was that there should be two Highway Authorities—the County Council for all main and principal roads and the Parish Council for small and accommodation ones.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had no desire to maintain any opinion of his own against the views of hon. Members whose practical acquaintance with the subject was greater than his own. There was the same desire on both sides of the House—that was, that the roads should be kept in good repair. The Government also desired to equip the District Councils. They could not accept this Amendment because it would foreclose a question to be raised on Clause 24. At the same time, he was inclined to look with favour upon the suggestion that the Government should consider whether they could not find a solution by introducing the authority of the County Council. He should like to reserve the question for consideration; and he would suggest that the Amendment should not be pressed, but that the question should be dealt with on Clause 24. Before they came to that he would reconsider the whole question, with the view of creating a tertium quid which would meet the views of both sides, by introducing the veto of the County Council. He should be very sorry to take a strong view against hon. Members who had spoken; but he had a strong desire to bring about simplification of areas and the equipping of the District Councils; and he thought it might be possible to reconcile the wishes of the Government with the views of hon. Members. He would again suggest that the Amendment should not now be pressed.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he quite recognised the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to meet both sides of the House, but he would point out that there was considerable danger in the course which he suggested. According to the Bill, the existing authorities would cease, and the new ones would come into existence on the appointed day. The existing authorities would cease to have control—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is provided for.

MR. W. LONG

wished to know were these new authorities to come into existence for this purpose without any preparation? It appeared to him that the Amendment was supported rather than opposed by hon. Members opposite. Those who opposed the Amendment did so from a misunderstanding as to its meaning. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in saying that it would prejudge the matter to deal with it before they came to Clause 24. It would do nothing of the kind. The acceptance of this Amendment would stop nothing; its non-acceptance would create confusion, He understood the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Johnson-Ferguson) to say that they would have better management of highways by a District Council authority.

MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON

said, his argument was that the administration of District Councils would be much better.

MR. W. LONG

The hon. Gentleman forgot to say that he was talking of Scotland.

MR. JOHNSON-FERGUSON

said, he said most distinctly that he was speaking of Lancashire.

MR. W. LONG

begged pardon. He had gathered that the hon. Gentleman had confined his remarks to Scotland. The argument was, however, that the administration of those Councils would be better than that of the Parochial Councils. He did not know that they were justified in saying that the system of administration was better than it was ever likely to be. He thought the attitude of the Government was the greatest rebuff that could be given to the County Councils. He confessed that he regretted very much that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to accept the Amendment. It was one of considerable importance, and he could only look upon the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to accept it, as being directed from inexperience rather than experience. They, at all events, had laid their arguments before him, and they had support on both sides of the House.

MR. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)

said, this was a very important discussion, and he would like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. [Cries of "Divide!"] One point which had been brought forward—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order!

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.