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

HC Deb 12 December 1893 vol 19 cc1224-68

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 11th December.]

[NINETEENTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 14 (Delegated powers of Parish Councils).

[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. Goldsmid) in the Chair.]

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he had to move—In page 11, line 1, after the first "a," insert "rural." He understood the Government were willing to accept this Amendment, which was introduced in order to indicate the particular class of District Council to which the power was to be given. They had elsewhere a definition of an Urban Sanitary Authority, and he thought they should make it definite that a Rural Council was referred to here.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 1, after the first" a," to insert the word "rural."—(Sir A. Rollit.)

Question proposed, " That the word ' rural' be there inserted."

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

said, he agreed to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The first two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) proposing— In page 11, line 1, after "to," insert "the members of"; and page 11, line 1, after " Council," insert " being persons liable to contribute to the poor rate are out of Order. The third Amendment is in Order.

MR. HANBURY (Preston) moved— In page 11, line 3, to leave out "Public Health Acts," and insert " Public Health Act, 1875. He said, so far as he was able to discover, these Committees were to deal with no other Act but that of 1875, and, as they did not want a lawyer in every village, they should try and make the matter as simple as possible. But if they made reference to a large number of Public Health Acts he was afraid it would be anything but simple. He found that there were some 16 such Acts; but they did not give any power except that contained in the one Act, and, that being so, why should they not at once refer merely to that Act? The District Council would want a lawyer as well as a Parish Council. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him upon the point.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 3, to leave out the words " Public Health Acts," and insert " Public Acts, 1875."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words ' Public Health Acts ' stand part of the Clause."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)

said, in the delegation of powers the District Council would be obliged to delegate powers contained in the other Acts. They must look to the other Acts for the powers which were to be delegated. The Amendment would not assist, but would tend to mislead that Council and the Parish Council also.

MR. HANBURY

said, he would suggest, that, at all events, these Parish Councils should know what Acts they were to deal with. They should be printed in an appendix or a schedule. He was afraid it would not do to refer them to the 16 Acts to which he had alluded. They ought to be referred to the powers that were delegated to them, if only to save trouble. There was only one Act delegating powers, and, surely, all these Acts did not deal with the powers so delegated. They should, at all events, as he had said, have the matter put before the Councils in a specific way. If the Government could not do that now, they might give a provision that they would consider the question.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, if, as the Solicitor General said, the Councils were to be referred not merely to the Act of 1875, but to the long list of Acts mentioned by his hon. Friend, the situation would be something awful. He did not know whether they were aware that by this Bill they incorporated, repealed, or adopted 32 other Acts. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the question. The question was were they to add 16 more Acts to these 32? They were told that they were to have not merely the Act of 1875, but several other Acts. He thought they might follow the precedent set in the case of the Seal Fisheries Bill during the present year. In that case every clause of every Act of Parliament dealt with was printed in an appendix to the Bill itself. If that course were followed, the advantage to the village, the Councillors, and all concerned would be very great. If the reference were an advantage in the other case, how much greater must it be here, where the Bill was one intended for administration by simple people who were not versed in Acts of Parliament.

COMMANDER BETHELLHolderness)

said, it would be the duty of those connected with the District Council to deal with the powers to be delegated, and it was very likely the clerk of the District Council would be a lawyer, or a person able to guide that body. He wanted to ask what advantage there was in allowing the District Council to delegate some of the sanitary duties to the Parochial Committee when there was a Parish Council?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The question is the inclusion of the Public Health Acts.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, with reference to the suggestion that the Acts should be scheduled, he would point out that it would be impossible to schedule them.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, this was a most interesting and useful clause. It followed the line he had advocated in the Committee, and went in the direction of strengthening the Parish Council. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to meet the desire to have the references scheduled, but he was inclined to think it would be very difficult to carry out the suggestion.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk) moved, in line 3, omit from the word "Acts" to the end of the section. He did not think there was any necessity for the words. They ought to leave the matter in the discretion of the District Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 3, to leave out from the word "Acts " to the end of the Section.—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they did not want divided jurisdictions in small parishes. If they were to make any alteration they would have to repeal the section of a former Act which enabled the appointment of a Parochial Committee, and the delegation of powers to it. This would be his answer also to the question addressed to him the hon. Member for Holderness.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, his question was as to why certain powers should be delegated to a Committee where a Council existed; but he would not press the matter.

MR. HANBURY

said, for his part, he did object to people who were not ratepayers being brought in to deal with district matters. He did not think it was right that people who did not contribute to the poor rate should have a voice in dealing with district matters. He was aware that the right hon. Gentleman would say they would be members of the Parish Council, who would be appointed to the parochial committees; but they would have power to deal with the district in general, and he repeated it was not right that people who were not ratepayers and who were not elected by the district should be brought in in that way. It was well-known that those who were elected for the district would have the power to control the officials of the district.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. HANBURY

said, yes; if the right hon. Gentleman would only read the instructions given by his predecessor, he would find that they had a perfect right to give orders to the officials—not their own parish officials, but district officials. That was his reason for seeking to introduce a limitation with regard to ratepayers. It was not necessary to propose that a man should be a ratepayer. If he was to be elected, the people, it was to be presumed, would look into his qualification. If they gave authority over the larger area, the person elected should be a man who contributed to the rate. And he was afraid if this clause passed in its present form, it would give a very large power indeed.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

I withdraw the Amendment, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, as a consequential Amendment, he begged to move— In page 11, line 3, after the word " where," to insert the word " such.

Question proposed, "That the word ' such' be there inserted."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

signified assent.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. STOREY

said, he would move as a further Amendment— In page 11, line 3, to leave out the word " appoint," and insert the word " appoints.

Amendment agreed to.

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

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

said, there was one question he wished to put: In a case where there was no Parish Council, but only a parish Court, what would be the effect of the clause? How would the parochial Court be delegated?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The status quo would remain undisturbed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 (Complaint by Parish Council of default of District Council).

SIR A. ROLLIT rose to move an Amendment which stood in his name.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

said, he thought he had an Amendment which came before that of the hon. Baronet below him. He moved, in line 1, to leave out "consider" in order to insert "resolve." He thought "consider" was not definite enough, and he hoped " resolve " would be substituted.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out the word "consider," and insert the word "resolve."—(Sir R. Paget.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 7, after the first "a" to insert the word " rural.

Question proposed, "That the word 'rural' be there inserted."

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

asked if the powers contained in this clause should not be given to the ratepayers in the case of Urban District Councils?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he did not object to the Amendment. He did not think it necessary to give an appeal to the County Councils in the case of Urban Authorities. Those authorities, whether large or small, would object.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, there were many small urban districts that were quite as great sinners in sanitary matters, and did quite as much harm to neighbouring parishes as rural districts. The County Councils already had powers in respect to many urban districts. They had to consider the reports of medical officers and make representations to the Local Government Board with regard to certain districts. Under the circumstances, he thought it hard that the Bill should not give power to the inhabitants, who were injured by the neglect of a small Urban Authority to make complaint to the County Council. The question would have to be considered in connection with a later section in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

said, he desired to move— In page 11, line 10, to leave out "in accordance with the Public Health Acts," and insert " in cases where danger arises to the health of the inhabitants from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply of water, and a proper supply can be got at a reasonable cost. He moved the Amendment for the reason that under the Public Health Act of 1875, Section 299, any inhabitant had power to appeal to the Local Government Board in case of default by a Local Authority. The words of his Amendment were the words of that clause, showing exactly under what circumstances the inhabitant had a right to appeal. It struck him, therefore, that it would be well that when a Parish Council complained of a Local Authority, it should also complain to the County Council for exactly the same reasons and in the same words, so that they should not have an ordinary subject having a right to appeal to the Local Government Board on one ground, and a Parish Council, in an exactly similar matter, having a right to appeal to the County Council on other grounds. The words he proposed to strike out had a vagueness that he had complained of on a former clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 10, leave out "in accordance with the Public Health Acts," and insert " in cases where danger arises to the health of the inhabitants from the insufficiency or unwholesomeness of the existing supply of water, and a proper supply can be got at a reasonable cost."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member for Preston was quite right. These words were the exact words of the Public Health Act. The draftsman had rather preferred the words in the clause as a matter of scientific drafting, but he (Mr. Fowler) agreed with the hon. Member that it would be better to put on the face of the clause the grounds on which the appeal should be made. Rather against the judgment of his advisers, he had resolved to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. HANBUEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 11, line 12, after the word " Acts," to insert the words " which it is their duty to enforce."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

MR. HANBURY

said, he wished to suggest an Amendment which should be inserted after the words just added to the clause. Later on they gave Rural Sanitary Authorities the powers, in some cases, of Urban Sanitary Authorities. The Local Government Board would also be able to give them certain powers as Urban Sanitary Authorities, not only under the Public Health Acts, but under other Acts as provided in Clause 24. He wished to insert in Clause 15 a provision which would enable Parish Councils to complain not only when the District Council made default as a Rural Sanitary Authority, but also when they made default as Urban Sanitary Authorities.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the answer would be the same as that which would be given to the hon. Member for Somersetshire—namely, they must wait to see what was done with Clause 24 before the point raised could be decided.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he would move his Amendment, which would give an appeal in cases where the District Council had failed to maintain or repair highways within their jurisdiction. He did not think that the question here raised depended on the result of the consideration of Clause 24. It might be inconvenient to deal with these matters at this part of the Bill, but that arose from the manner in which the Bill was drafted. His object was to give the same power of complaint against Rural District Councils quâ Highway Authorities as there would be against them quâ Sanitary Authorities. Whatever else was done, he imagined that at any rate where there were Highway Districts already, there would be Highway Boards — highway powers placed in the same hands as rural sanitary powers. Where there were no Highway Boards, the Government probably would not force them to be established, but in some districts where they were already there would be no question about their remaining in existence. They were necessary in some parts of the country, the parishes being too small, and the counties too large. Therefore, whatever happened on Clause 24, it would still be necessary to vest highway powers in District Councils. Where that was done he would put it to the President of the Local Government Board whether there should not be similar powers of complaint detailed as against the Highway Authority as were already given in regard to Sanitary Authorities. Under Section 10 of the Highways and Locomotives Act of 1878, there was power of making complaint to the County Authority that the Highway Authority had made default in maintaining and repairing all or any of the highways within their jurisdiction. That was a similar kind of complaint to that which would be given in the clause, but the clause did not end in the same way. The present position was that the County Authority had the duty of inquiring and of making orders on the Highway Board to perform its duty. But there was this curious limitation on the part of the County Authority which might in many cases make the power rather nugatory: that it had either to satisfy the District Authority, and thus make it comply with its order by agreement, or else the District Authority would have the right to require the County Authority to submit to a jury the question of its own liability to repair the highway. That seemed to him a most inconvenient and unnecessary power to give, and one quite inconsistent with the very clause they were discussing. Why should a question like this be submitted to a jury when they had a much more speedy process in the Bill? Therefore, he wished to substitute the simpler power of enforcing this obligation.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 12, after the word "do," insert the words " or that such District Council have failed to maintain or repair all or any of the highways within their jurisdiction."— (Mr. H. Mobhouse.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, this did primâ facie appear a simple method of procedure, but that simplicity disappeared when they carefully examined the Section 10 to which the hon. Member had referred. As a matter of fact, the Highway Authority did not usually sin by merely neglecting its duty. It declared that it was not its duty to deal with a particular highway, and that became a legal question; and Section 10, therefore, carefully provided for that question to be put in the way of being decided by litigation. If they adopted this Amendment they would have no such authority. The thing in Section 10 had been very carefully gone into by the Legislature.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he did not suggest that that section should be repealed.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that simplicity was not gained by giving concurrent authority. It would be better to leave the particular question of want of repair of highways to be determined by the special legislation which in 1878 was passed as a complete scheme.

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

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

asked the Government whether they would consent to adopt his Amendment and to add at the end of the clause a proviso that if any question were raised as to the liability of a District Council to maintain or repair a highway, such question should, if the District Council so desired, be determined by a jury under the provisions of Section 10 of the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the provision already made out on the subject was perfectly simple. Anyone might make a complaint to the County Council, and, therefore, the County Council could at once order the work to be done. If it were not done the County Council could then appoint a person, who would have all the powers of a Rural Sanitary Authority, to do it.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

remarked that it would be better for the Parish Council to move in its representative capacity than in its individual capacity. What was everybody's duty was nobody's duty.

MR. W. LONG

said, he had not gathered on what ground the Government opposed the Amendment. The Solicitor General would admit that the Highway Acts were an extremely complicated set of enactments, and the difficulties which arose under them were really very great. All his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Hobhouse) suggested was that the same power of appeal should be given with reference to failure to perform their duties by a District Council with regard to the highways as was proposed to be given under the Bill with reference to other matters. His hon. Friend was one of the highest authorities on these matters of local government, in consequence not only of his legal learning, but of the facts that he had taken a considerable part in the administration of local affairs, and had for many years been engaged in the duty of framing Bills for the consideration of Parliament. As his hon. Friend recommended this Amendment, and as the difficulties in its way did not appear to be great, he (Mr. Long) hoped the Government would see their way to reconsider their determination.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We have given the matter our best consideration, and have come to the conclusion that we cannot accept the Amendment. I should, however, be sorry if it were negatived, as I should like to have an opportunity to reconsider the point when we know what the Committee intend to do with Clause 24.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

^*MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury) moved an Amendment giving the Parish Council power, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to do certain work which should be done by the District Council. His object was, he said, that the parish should have the choice of doing the work if it were capable of performing it; that, for instance, it should, if it preferred, do its own sanitary work. There were a large number of parishes, having a high rateable value, in a position to do their own work, if only the opportunity were afforded them, and who would gladly undertake it in cases in which the District Council failed to give satisfaction. He was acquainted with the case of one large parish which was anxious to carry out a system of sewerage, which the Sanitary Authority at present refused to undertake; and he did think that in a case like that the parish should be empowered to give effect to its own wishes, with, of course, the consent of the Local Government Board. The parish in question had a higher rateable value than some of the Urban Authorities in the County of Wiltshire, and it would be much better to let it do its own sanitary work, instead of leaving it to complain to the County Council of the default of the District Council. No harm could be done by conferring this power, while at least it would afford the Parish Councils an instructive lesson in self-government, and it would at the same time relieve the County Councils of some of the large amount of work now being cast upon them.

Amendment proposed, In page 11. line 13, after the word " may," to insert the words " with the consent of the Local Government Board, exercise the powers of the District Council in which such parish is situated, or."—(Mr. Fuller.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

One of the cardinal points of our Bill is, that the Parish Council is not in any sense to be made a Rural Sanitary Authority. To that we must adhere, and in consequence it is impossible for me to accept the Amendment. I can understand that there are exceptional parishes, with a large population, ready and desirous to undertake these duties, but they have the remedy in their own hands. They can apply to be made Urban Sanitary Authorities. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG

agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time he congratulated the hon. Member for the Westbury Division on his Amendment. No doubt his policy was to decentralise the system of local government; but had the Amendment been accepted, it would have had a directly contrary effect, by giving the Local Government Board more control over the parishes than it now possessed. That had not hitherto been the policy advocated by those with whom the hon. Member was accustomed to act. He believed that Clause 14 gave the parishes all the powers they required to enable them to manage their own affairs, and in addition to that, it was the case, as the right hon. Gentleman had reminded them, that if they wished more power it was open to them to apply to be created into Urban Sanitary Authorities.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he, too, was opposed to the Amendment, because he was an advocate of decentralisation. He agreed with the last speaker that Clause 14 was a most valuable part of the Bill, and gave all the powers that were necessary, and he was, therefore, glad to know that the President of the Local Government Board refused to accept the Amendment.

MR. FULLER

said, his object seemed to be misunderstood. He did not want the Local Government Board to undertake the work; he only wanted the consent of that authority to the parish doing its own work, and that consent could be given after inquiry by an Inspector. Under the circumstances, however, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, this was one of a series of Amendments which were intended, in his opinion, to abrogate the Parish Councils functions now proposed to be delegated to the District Councils. He had on a previous Amendment pointed out the inconvenience of constituting two distinct authorities to deal with one and the same class of subjects, and he was opposed to this Amendment because it would have the same effect. He was not sure that the Bill steered quite so clear as it might of this danger, and that it did not create a certain amount of confusion. The hon. Member apparently wanted to get rid of the District Council altogether.

MR. FULLER

No.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that notwithstanding his assertion to the contrary, it was the practical effect of the Amendment, because it deprived the District Council of a considerable portion of the duties delegated to it by the Bill.

MR. FULLER

Only in case it fails to do its duty.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the hon. Gentleman assumed that the District Council would neglect its duty. He was not going himself to deny that very likely it might do so, and when he came to the portion of the Bill which dealt with District Councils he should feel it his duty to call attention to one or two cases in which it was likely they would fail. The effect of the hon. Gentleman's proposition would be mainly to increase the powers of the County and Parish Councils, and to lessen those entrusted to the District Councils, and a question might, if that were allowed, arise as to whether there was any necessity for the intervention of the District Council between the County and Parish Councils. As the hon. Member intended to withdraw his Amendment, he wished to say that when other Amendments of a like character were brought forward, he hoped he would not be charged with inconsistency when he reiterated his contention that the District Council had simply been brought into the Bill by the Government in order to carry out the pledges which they had given. They knew very well that in many respects the work to be delegated to the District Council could be better done by other bodies.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SNAPE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood)

moved an Amendment giving three ratepayers as well as the Parish Council power to make complaint of default on the part of the Parish Council. He said he hoped the Government would agree to the proposal. The principle embodied in it had already been accepted by Parliament, and inserted in various Acts, including the Allotments Act of 1887 and the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890. He held that, especially on matters connected with the health of the community, ratepayers should have a right to complain in case of inaction on the part of the proper authority. Those hon. Members who were connected with County Councils must be well aware that, in consequence of the unwillingness of Local Authorities to move, there were many unhealthy dwellings and districts to be found. He thought it would be a great advantage if ratepayers should have power to make representations to the County Councils in case the Local Authority failed to take action.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 18, at end, insert,—"(2) A complaint under this section may be made by any three ratepayers residing in or near to the district of the District Council complained of as well as by a Parish Council."—(Mr. Shape.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

When the legislation to which my hon. Friend has alluded took place there were in existence no Parish Councils, and therefore these special provisions were deemed desirable, and it was thought desirable to have some local power to make complaint. But now we are constituting Parish Councils, and I must enter my respectful protest against this interference with those bodies, and against the suggestion that a Council elected by the parish may be dominated by some motive as to saving the rates, and will not therefore do its duty. I think it would be unwise to introduce into the parish conflicting authorities. The adoption of the Amendment could only lead to confusion, seeing that the hon. Member does not even propose to confine the power of complaining to parishioners. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will not press it.

MR. SNAPE

said, he would not press the Amendment, but he still thought the proposal a desirable one, and he denied that it was intended to show any distrust of the Parish Council.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman failed to understand the object of the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I fully understand it.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had commented unfavourably on the fact that the Amendment proposed to give power of complaint to three ratepayers "residing in or near the district." But the object was to meet the case of a nuisance which had its source in one parish, but really affected another parish, such, for instance, as a polluted stream. It was very desirable that anyone living in a district likely to be affected should have a right to complain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, he had to submit an Amendment the effect of which would be that, when a District Council had determined on a plan for sewerage or waiter supply for a parish, the Parish Council should have the right to receive communication of such plan and express its opinion thereon previous to any contract being entered into for the execution of the work. He understood the Government were willing to accept his proposal, but the President of the Local Government Board had framed it rather differently. He gladly adopted the altered form.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 18, at end, insert,— "When a District Council has determined on a plan for sewerage or water supply for any contributory place within the district they shall give notice thereof to the Parish Council of the parish for which the works are to be provided before any contract is entered into by them for the execution of the works.

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not understand what was meant by that proposal. He had had that day to deal with the case of a sewerage scheme framed on behalf of a Rural Sanitary Authority, and lodged under the provisions of the Lands Clauses Act which gave powers to take land for such works. Now, was it intended that in such cases in future notice should be served on the Parish Council equally with the owners of the property affected? If so, and should the Parish Council be of opinion that the scheme would create a nuisance—as it would, undoubtedly, in the case he had had to deal with that day—would the Parish Council be at liberty to incur expense by opposing it, or did the Amendment only intend that it should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion? He thought it right, and some plan should be adopted to enable a Parish Council to state its views as to the effect of any scheme, but he hoped it was not intended that such power of expressing an opinion should involve a right to enter upon litigation.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

As has been pointed out, it would be unfair that schemes of the sewerage or water supply should be carried out in a parish without the Parish Council having an opportunity of expressing its views thereon. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not intended to confer any power of taking up a litigious attitude or of spending money; all the Amendment will do will be to enable the Council to ascertain how the parish is being treated and to say whether or not it approves the scheme.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that met his point, and he did not wish to oppose the Amendment. All it did, as he gathered, was to give the Parish Council a locus standi at any inquiry the Local Government Board might hold, and enable it to lay its views before the Inspector without, however, incurring any expense.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR R. PAGET

said, there was another point to which he wished to draw attention. The clause enabled the County Council to supersede the District Council, but did not fix any limit to the supercession. He, therefore, moved an Amendment defining what should be done in that matter.

Amendment proposed, After last Amendment, add, "Such duties and powers shall continue to he exercised by the County Council until the necessary works connected with the subject-matter of complaint have been completed.

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the last Amendment."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he quite appreciated the object of the hon. Baronet; but he thought the Amendment was quite unnecessary, as the powers of the County Council were already clearly defined. It would simply do what the District Council should have done.

SIR R. PAGET

How long will the supercession last?

SIR J. RIGBY

Until it has done the work which the District Council should have done. There can be no doubt about that.

MR. WHARTON (Yorkshire, Ripon)

said, he understood from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman that this clause would not detract from the powers of the County Council to take the initiative when sanitary improvements were required. During the last two or three years an immense amount of sanitary improvement, which had been much needed, had been effected in the County of Durham. The County Council called on the various Rural Sanitary Authoties to take action where it was required; and the owners of the mining villages responded to the appeal of the Rural Sanitary Authorities with the most satisfactory results. He was glad to be assured that such good work on the part of the County Council would not be interfered with under the Act.

SIR J. RIGBY

Not in any way.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that the Solicitor General, with his eye of legal intelligence, might see in the words of the clause what was not visible to the eye of the ordinary layman. However, he accepted the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman that his point was provided for already, and begged to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

said, he desired to call the Solicitor General's attention to the fact that there was some confusion in the Bill as to the use of the singular and plural number. In past clauses the Parish Council was referred to in the singular number; and in this clause and subsequent clauses it was referred to in the plural.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he was sorry it was not allowed to remain in the singular. "Parish Council" was a noun of multitude, and might be either singular or plural.

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

said, the clause sinned in two ways. He hated the District Council, for he thought it was bad; but having decided to have it, it was a pity that a clause like this should be inserted in the Bill to destroy the authority of the District Council. He did not believe that under any circumstances the District Council would have sufficient interest in its work to induce it to carry it through in an effective fashion, and if the Bill gave to the Parish Council an appeal from them to the County Council, the motive to make the District Council do its duty would be still weaker. That was a sin of commission. There was also a sin of omission in the clause. The hon. Member for Ripon had said that the Durham County Council had been able to do a great deal of sanitary work. He did not know under what clause of the Act they had been able to do it. At any rate the County Council of his county were unable to appoint a medical officer for the reason that if such an officer were appointed he would have no powers. In his judgment the County Council ought to be responsible for the general health of the county, and therefore able to appoint a medical officer to look after the county.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

On Clause 16 (Officers of the Parish Council.

MR. J. LOWTHER moved in page 11, line 19, to leave out "one of their number," and insert "a parochial elector." He thought it was desirable, especially in the cases of small parish communities, that the number of salaried officers should be reduced to the minimum. If the Parish Council could secure the services of one of their own numbers to act as clerk without remuneration, it would be the best plan in the interests of the pockets of the ratepayers. But he could not understand why some persons other than a member of the Parish Council should not be entitled to act as clerk, likewise without remuneration. Of course it would be right enough that a person on whom enormous duties were thrown should be remunerated; but in a small parish the duties of the clerk would be nominal, and he could not see why any person who volunteered to discharge the duties without salary should not be allowed to do so. There was one part of the clause which made him suspicious, and that was the sub-section—"A Parish Council shall not appoint a vestry clerk." He suspected that the reason why the clause provided that the clerk must be a member of the Council, was that the Government were afraid that in many cases the Parish Councils in those small rural communities might appoint such a terrible person as the parish vestry clerk. He hoped he was wrong in his suspicion. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 19, to leave out the words "one of their number," and insert the words "a parochial elector."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I fully sympathise with the desire of the right hon. Gentleman. Our object and the right hon. Gentleman's object is to prevent expense as far as possible. We thought it desirable that if there is a sufficiently public-spirited member of the Parish Council disposed to Act as clerk to the Council without remuneration, he should be allowed to do so. But I think it would be an awkward thing to introduce a stranger, for the Council would have no power over him unless they paid him.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn as the explanation of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board was in the right and proper spirit.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had met his point very fairly, and he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY (who was received with Ministerial cries of "Agreed ")

said, he did not see when a Member got up on the Opposition side of the House he should be greeted with these constant interruptions. Such action did not tend to shorten the proceedings. He desired to point out that though the President of the Local Government Board did not desire that any member of the Parish Council should be appointed clerk with a salary, it was quite possible to do so under Sub-section 3, which provided that "some other fit person" might be appointed clerk, with a salary. The Parish Council might consider one of their number a fit person for the post. He thought the words "not being a member of the Parish Council" should be inserted after "or some other fit person."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In line 27, after the words " fit person " to insert the words " not being a member of the Parish Council."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that this was another instance of the over nervousness on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The clause provided that the Parish Council might appoint one of their number as clerk without remuneration. That involved a negative on the appointment of a Parish Councillor as clerk with a salary.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was afraid to enter into a controversy on a point of law with such an eminent legal authority as the Solicitor General—

SIR J. RIGBY

This is not an absolute point at law. It is a point anyone can understand.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Then I am bound to confess that I am nobody—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 33, he will find that a Parish Councillor is disqualified from continuing in office if he accepts a position as a paid officer.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I am glad to hear that, but I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to give a copy of the Bill to the Solicitor General.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he could not compliment the draftsmen on the clause. In the first place, the Parish Council were told that they might appoint one of their own number as clerk; in the next sentence they were told that an assistant overseer might be appointed; then if there was no assistant overseer, a collector of poor rates might be appointed; and after that they might appoint anyone they liked. Surely it would have been sufficient to provide that the Parish Council should have power to appoint a clerk? That was what it came to after they had got through all this rigmarole. The clause should simply run— The Parish Council may appoint a clerk, and pay him a salary.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the President of the Local Government Board had argued that Clause 33 turned a Councillor out of the Parish Council if he held a paid office, Then, if that were so, the words "without remuneration" in the present clause were surplusage, and not required. He, however, agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Preston that the words "any fit person" included a member of the Parish Council, and it therefore seemed to him necessary to have the Amendment adopted.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the matter could not be said to be quite clear without the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston. The Committee should remember that they were not legislating for lawyers, but for small bodies of Parish Councillors who should be told exactly and clearly what they were to do.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is not necessary to be a lawyer to understand Clause 33. It absolutely provides that no Parish Councillor can be a paid officer.

MR. W. LONG

said that, so far as Clause 33 was concerned, there was no doubt about it. But in that case what was the object of stating in the present clause that a Parish Council might appoint one of its number as clerk without remuneration? There was really some doubt about the phraseology of the clause, but he did not think the words proposed would clear it up.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Our motive is to indicate that the Parish Council may appoint one of their number, but not to pay him. That has not an enacting force, but a guiding force. But we positively object to the insertion of these words because they would really interfere with Clause 33.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that Subsection 2 of Clause 64 provided that an existing Vestry Clerk of a rural parish should become the clerk of the Parish Council. That seemed to be quite mandatory, and directed the Parish Council where there was an existing Vestry Clerk to appoint him clerk to the Parish Council.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That matter will be explained at the proper time, when we come to Clause 64.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON moved to omit all the words in line 28, after "remuneration," in order to insert "as they may think fit." If a Parish Council appointed one of their own members as clerk there was no question of remuneration; but if the assistant overseer were appointed, the Parish Council were to consider his services when taking his salary into account. If they appointed a collector of poor rates the District Council was to come upon the scene, and he thought it was rather absurd not to trust the Parish Council to fix the salary of their own clerk. He could understand there was something to be said for the District Council or Boards of Guardians fixing; the remuneration, as it might affect the poor rate; but why the District Council should be brought in for the purpose of fixing the salary of any other fit person to he Clerk of the Council it passed the wit of man to understand. The right hon. Gentleman himself just now, in reading over the clause, read it in the way he (Mr. Grant Lawson) desired It to stand, and he therefore proposed his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 28, to leave out all the words after "remuneration," and insert the words "as they may think fit.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, those restrictive provisions were put in to prevent any unnecessary expenditure on the part of the Parish Council. If hon. Gentlemen opposite approved of the Amendment he was willing to accept it; but if so he hoped it would be accepted at once, as they did not wish to be involved in a protracted discussion.

MR. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

objected to the Amendment, as he knew something about the fixing of salaries. On the County Technical Committee with which he was connected there had been a good deal of feeling as to parochial committees raising the salaries of their clerks, though, owing to the wise action of the County Council, they were equalising them. He hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

supported the view of his hon. Friend who had just spoken. It was quite clear, he thought, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, that this taking away the last words of the sub-section might have the effect of raising the salary of the clerk, and that was what he did not want.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it might, or it might be the other way.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Amendment. [Cries of " No! "]

MR. W. LONG

only rose to say he entirely approved of the Amendment, and if it was left to the Parish Council to find the money he did not think they were likely to be extravagant.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, that if they referred to Sub-section 3 in Clause 64 they found it said— Any existing Assistant Overseer in a parish for which a Parish Council is elected shall, unless appointed by a Board of Guardians, become an officer of the Parish Council. If the Amendment laid it down that the Parish Council could fix the salary at what they chose, there would be conflicting salaries.

MR. FISHER (Fulham)

supported the Amendment of his hon. Friend, as he thought the Body that ought to estimate the value of the services of their servant was the Parochial Body, who would know what amount of work their servant would be called upon to do. The parishes would be of varying sizes, having varying work to be done, and the District Council would not know how to estimate the value of the services rendered. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He did not think they were agreed; if they were he would not venture for a moment to waste the time of the House, but until he saw some signs of agreement he thought they ought to consider the question. The Parish Council who employed the clerk was the best able to judge whether he performed his duties in such a way as to deserve an increase of salary; they ought to be able to reduce or increase the salary according to whether the work was performed efficiently or inefficiently. He hoped the Amendment would meet with the support of the Committee.

SIR E. PAGET, who was received with cries of "Oh!" said he thought hon. Members on that side of the House had a right to be heard. At the first glance the Amendment commended itself to him, and he understood the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, because he thought it might lead to the clerk getting a higher salary. On the whole he thought the Amendment to be an improvement of the clause, and he should therefore support if.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he wished to move the omission of Subsection (4) "A Parish Council shall not appoint a Vestry clerk." He presumed what was meant, though it was not stated, was that they should not appoint a Vestry clerk as clerk of the Council.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No, no.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, in that case why should they not say the Parish Council should not appoint the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Where did they find in the Bill power to appoint the clerk of the Vestry?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the question was provided for in an earlier part of the Bill.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that they shall not appoint a clerk to the Vestry?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not a Vestry clerk.

MR. FINCH (Rutland)

said, he rose to propose a new sub-section to Subsection 4 of the clause, and he trusted the Government might see their way to accept it. Parochial Committees were appointed under the Public Health Act, and to these committees powers were given that often required the advice of a legal man to enable them to be properly carried out. Amongst the powers thus given were the making of new roads, doing away with nuisances, seeing after drainage, and such matters, and unless-properly advised they might make mistakes. He wished to provide that when the Council acted as a Parochial Committee it should have the benefit of legal advice. They could not say that the clerks that would be appointed would be men of law or have any legal knowledge, and it might be essential they should have the advice of a clerk who could give-them proper legal advice. Unless they gave power for the appointment of such a clerk, they might be certain the Sanitary Authority would never make the Parish Council a Parochial Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 29, after the words "Vestry-clerk," to insert as a new sub-section,—" When a Parish Council acts as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it may have the services of such clerk for its purposes as a Parochial Committee, as the District Council may direct."—(Mr. Finch.)

Question proposed, "That the new sub-se3tion be there inserted."

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

said, if the Amendment were inserted, it seemed to him the Committee would have got into a considerable difficulty, because the-words immediately preceding this proposal were "A Parish Council shall not appoint a Vestry clerk," and then it was proposed, whereas they could not appoint such a clerk, "when a Parish Council acts-as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it may have the-services of such clerk," who had not been appointed "for its purposes as a Parochial Committee." If the Amendment were accepted as it stood it would appear-that they could not appoint a clerk, and when they could not appoint a clerk some-other body should have the value of his services "as such." It cost him a good deal to oppose this Amendment, because they could not but have it brought to their notice that they were told they were to sit there on Boxing Day. [Cries of "Question!"] He hoped that it was a question; but if they were, the Bill would compose the finest libretto in London; therefore he hoped they would sit.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, the criticism of the hon. Gentleman was smart but flippant. The purpose for which this Amendment was proposed was a sound and business-like purpose, and with a little alteration the Amendment might, he thought, be accepted. He understood the hon. Gentleman meant that the Parish Council should have the services of the District Council clerk. He would suggest that instead of saying "may" the hon. Gentleman should put in "shall," and he would tell him why. His experience, and his hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) would agree with him in this, was that when they appointed a clerk and said his services "may" be required, if they were required he immediately applied for an increase of salary, whereas if they said his services "shall" be required that was taken into account on the appointment. If the hon. Member would accept his verbal Amendments the Amendment would then read in this way— When a Parish Council acts as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it shall have the services of the clerk of the District Council for its purposes. If that were done he believed the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, despite the flippant criticism of the hon. Member for somewhere.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, in that case the Parish Council was to have two clerks, its own clerk for certain purposes, and the clerk of the District Council for other work. Such a course, he believed, would lead not only to a certain amount of friction but to additional expense. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman he would suggest that the Amendment was unnecessary.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that as he understood the meaning of the Amendment it was that the duty of discharging the delegated duties in the first instance belonged to the Rural District Council, and in the performance of those duties they would have the services of their own clerk. The old acting powers of the District Council enabled them to delegate certain work to the Parochial Committee, and he could not see why the clerk should not help the Parochial Committee as well as his own Council. He was inclined to advise the Committee to accept the Amendment with a verbal alteration—namely, to leave out "as the District Council shall direct." That, he thought, would put it beyond all reasonable doubt.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

It would be better if the hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendment and allowed it to be moved in the altered form.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to point out that while he thought the Amendment should be introduced he was doubtful whether is should be amended in so strict a sense as recommended by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). He was acquainted with what took place when they appointed a Parochial Committee. It was appointed to do duties that the District Council could not do, such as works of drainage in a distant district; the clerk of the District Council might not be able to supervise those works, and it might be desirable sometimes to have a solicitor to help the Parochial Committee in the duties; therefore he thought the Amendment was justified. He would suggest, however, they should insert the words— shall have the services of such a person as the clerk on the Parochial Committee as the District Council shall direct.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, this seemed a good arrangement on the face of it, but suppose there were a dozen or 15 parishes that wished to have a Parochial Committee, was this poor unfortunate officer of the District Council to do the work of all of them? Some districts might have 30 or 40 parishes, and he wished to point out that delegation of the duties of the District Council might become so frequent that it would be almost impossible for the District Council officer to attend to every one of them.

MR. W. LONG

trusted the hon. Gentleman would accept the combined suggestions of his hon. Friend behind him and the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) If it were made permissive the difficulty would not arise as if it were made obligatory.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, the Amendment was very good as it stood on the Paper, but how would it be carried out? Did they suppose that any solicitor who was appointed clerk of the District Council would see about all these committees? He would do nothing of the sort; he would send a clerk here and there, and he would make a bargain to do this, or to have a supplemental fee, and the expense would be thrown on the Parish Council. They would have to look after drainage, sewerage, and other matters, and they would not require a solicitor to do that. If they wanted a lawyer then he admitted they ought to have the use of the District Council clerk, and, therefore, what was required was that the Parish Council should have the right to say whether they wanted his services or not.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

thought they could meet the views of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Sir J. Dorington), and he would suggest that the hon. Member should add, after the words "Parochial Committee" in the last line, the words "unless the District Council otherwise direct."

MR. HENEAGE

said, what he wanted was that the Parish Council should say whether they required it; he did not want the District Council clerk to press his services on the Parish Council; he did not want this lawyer—he knew what lawyers were—to be sending his clerk here and there, and recouping himself by fees and salaries out of the Parish Council.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the Amendment, as now suggested, would cover what the right hon. Gentleman required. If the Amendment were proposed in the form suggested, and upon which they seemed to be all agreed, he would accept it.

MR. J. LOWTHER

considered that if Parish Council required the legal advice of the clerk of a District Council, who, he presumed, would be a local legal practitioner, they ought not to have to pay him.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In line 29, after the words "Vestry Clerk," to insert as a new sub-section,—"When a Parish Council acts as a Parochial Committee by delegation from the District Council, it shall have the services of the clerk of the District Council, unless the District Council otherwise direct."— (Mr. Finch)

Question put, and agreed to.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping) moved the following Amendment:— In line 30, to leave out from the word "Council," to end of line 31, and insert the words "shall appoint a banker. He explained that the object was. to provide that the funds of a Parish Council might be placed in the hand of a banker who would be a responsible person.

Amendment proposed, In line 30, to leave out from the word "Council," to the end of line 31, and insert the words "shall appoint a banker."—(Colonel Lockwood)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could not accept the Amendment, the effect of which would be to make the appointment of a banker by a Parish Council compulsory. There was nothing to prevent them appointing a banker. There was many a Parish Council where there was no banker in the neighbourhood, and it was, therefore, be very undesirable to make it compulsory. He had great respect for bankers, and in large matters it would be desirable to have a banker, but in small matters he did not think it would be desirable. He did not see why they should fetter the discretion of the Parish Council.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD

said, that in a neighbourhood where there was not a banker the funds might be deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank. His object was to make this compulsory.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

hoped this Amendment would not be adopted. A banker was defined to be a person to whom people lent their money without security, and without interest. That was a luxury, and they did not propose that the Parish Councils should indulge in luxuries. He confessed that this clause as to the appointment of the treasurer, coupled with the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman himself proposed to move that the treasurer should give security, was very much better than the Amendment now under discussion. He would far rather have a treasurer with security than a banker without it.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 11, line 31, at end, insert "and the treasurer shall give such security as may be required by regulations of the County Council.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. JEFFREYS

proposed the following Amendment:— In page 11, line 33, after the first "parish," to insert "except such as relate to the affairs of the Church, or of any ecclesiastical charity, or to any duty of the minister of the parish. He hoped the right Gentleman would accept the Amendment, because the words were incorporated in a subsequent Amendment of his (Mr. Fowler's) own.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

did not wish to anticipate any discussion as to the custody of parish documents, which would come on in his next Amendment; but this provision in the Bill had no bearing upon ecclesiastical affairs in any shape or form. It was intended to meet cases where documents were required to be deposited with the parish clerk, either under this Act or by Statute or by Standing Orders of Parliament. So that there should be no possible misconception on that point, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment he would himself propose to amend the sub-section by adding the words— All documents required by Statute or by Standing Order of Parliament to be deposited.

SIR R. WEBSTER

considered this the best suggestion, and it would clearly show that the sub-section only applied to official documents that had to be deposited by law.

MR. LEIGHTON

inquired what the documents were which had to be deposited?

Mr. H. H. FOWLER

had not the Standing Orders at his fingers' ends, but he might say that if a railway or canal went through a parish, or there was any public work for which statutory authority was required, plans and documents had to be deposited with the parish clerk, and this was really to carry out that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

proposed, after the word "required," to add the words "by Statute or by Standing Orders of Parliament."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HENEAGE moved, in line 34, after "deposited with," to insert "the treasurer or." He said that, as a rule, the treasurer was a substantial man, and there was the further advantage that he had to give security.

Amendment proposed, In line 34, after the words "deposited with," to insert the words "the treasurer or."—(Mr. Heneage.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the parish clerk, or where there was no parish clerk, the Chairman was the proper person to entrust with the custody of these documents. The treasurer was appointed for a totally different purpose, and these documents were required to be deposited with other documents with the parish clerk. On the ground of necessibility this was the best course.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

thought that under the Railway Act of 1845 it was compulsory for such documents to be lodged with the parish clerk.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of necessibility as being a desideratum in this connection. He had mentioned the Chairman, but the Chairman might be resident three miles away. The treasurer was a substantial individual in his own person, and there were persons behind him who had to give security, and he, for his part, proposed that the person in whose charge the documents were placed should be one who had afforded security himself, or had obtained it elsewhere.

MR. HENEAGE

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

proposed after the words "Parish Council," to insert the words— and the enactments in respect to the inspection of and taking copies of and extracts from any such document, shall apply as if the clerk or chairman, as the case may be, were mentioned therein.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

proposed the following Amendment:— In page 11, line 35, at end, add—"(7) All parish books and documents, other than those relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, but inclusive of any documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall either remain in their existing custody, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct; and the Incumbent and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, shall have reasonable access to the documents in the custody of the other of them, and any difference as to custody or access shall be determined by the County Council. He should, he said, like to explain to the Committee exactly the principles on which they had gone. First of all, the law excluded altogether the registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials. Their custody were provided for by Act of Parliament — 52nd George the 3rd, chapter 136—which they did not interfere with in any way. Then he proposed to exclude altogether from this section any documents or parish books relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities. The Committee would recollect that they did not interfere with the Vestry in its ecclesiastical aspect. The Vestry would still remain the body, and its officers, whether Incumbent or Churchwardens, as the case might be, would still have the custody of documents which were exclusively ecclesiastical or related to ecclesiastical charities. Then they came to two other distinct classes of books, papers, and documents; first, those which were partly ecclesiastical and secular, and those which were altogether secular. He took it that with reference to the last description of papers there could be no difference of opinion that the Parish Council stepping into the shoes of the Vestry in its non-ecclesiastical aspect must of course step into its shoes so far as concerned documents which do not relate to that object. This clause concerned minute books and books of account, and these, no doubt, in the past would be partly secular and partly ecclesiastical. The proposition of the Government made to the Committee was this: That those public books, writings, and documents should either remain in their existing custody, which would be possibly the Vestry, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council might direct. That was the first provision. They next provided that access to these books and papers should always be afforded to those who represented the ecclesiastical side of the parish on the one hand, and those who represented the secular side on the other. There was a provision that the Incumbents and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, should have reasonable access to these documents, and then they proposed to provide, in case of difference, as to custody or access—and of course it was possible some differences of opinion would arise mainly on the ground that this or that document was not exclusively ecclesiastical or secular—that that difference should be determined by the County Council. He should be glad to listen to any objection which might be made to the Committee as to the proposal. Ecclesiastical documents were to be left in ecclesiastical hands, secular documents in secular hands, documents partly ecclesiastical and partly secular to be deposited under the control of the Parish Council, either where they were now, or in some new depository, but in case of a difference of opinion arising, the County Council should interfere and decide. There was thus an immediate Court of Appeal to settle this question. He thought it very desirable that there should be some superintending authority as to the custody of these documents, and it had occurred to the Government that it would be an advisable thing to invest the County Council with power from time to time to inquire how these documents were preserved. He very much wished it had been in their power to extend the provisions of that Order to the registers of births, deaths, and marriages. These were the documents which were the most important, and most in danger, and had been in the past. But he had from the first maintained that this Bill did not and would not interfere with any ecclesiastical question, one way or the other, and therefore on that ground the clause excluded all ecclesiastical documents. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 35, at end of the Clause, to add the words,—"(7) All parish books and documents other than those relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, but inclusive of any documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall either remain in their existing custody, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct; and the Incumbent and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, shall have reasonable access to the documents in the custody of the other of them, and any difference as to custody or access shall be determined by the County Council." — (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR E. WEBSTER

did not rise at the present moment to express any opinion on debateable matters that might be raised on subsequent Amendments. He would rather postpone that, because he did not desire to initiate a discussion until he knew exactly the points to be raised. There were two points of great importance to which he desired to draw the attention of the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman had stated perfectly truly that the custody of the registers of births, marriages, and deaths, were controlled by certain Statutes. Had he sufficiently considered whether it was quite clear that these words might not affect these Statutes? [The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it was clear the words did not affect the Statutes in any way.] The next point was what was to happen with reference to a document which unquestionably did contain entries with regard to ecclesiastical matters. Take the case that there was in a book extracts of church ages; entries of Churchwardens, matters relating to the affairs of the Church, and also in the same book certain entries of a secular character. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose, where they were clearly and distinctly entries in reference to ecclesiastical matters, that the County Council should have the discretion? because it seemed to him that was a matter as to which there might be serious objection. He could understand if some direction were given as to the character or proportion of the entry, or something of that kind. But to give an absolute discretion, in the first instance, to the Parish Council, and in the second to the County Council, simply because there happened to be in the same book which contained ecclesiastical matters some entries of a secular character, was a position that ought not to be taken unless they were satisfied that it was the right course to adopt. It appeared to him that the right course to take, in the first instance, would be to leave such documents in their present custody, otherwise the subject might give rise to considerable discussion, and to much heartburning. There was a strong feeling that the custody of such documents ought not to be changed unless there was a necessity for it. He hoped that the whole matter would be fully discussed before the Committee came to a decision with regard to it.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

thought there was no one who would not feel that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had very fully redeemed his pledge with regard to this question, and they all felt that he had made a very fair attempt not to interfere with ecclesiastical affairs or property in this matter. At the same time, he wished to move his Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which was to leave out all the words from "documents," in line 1, down to the word "remain," in line 4, for the purpose of inserting the word "shall." He wished that the Parish Councils, for the sake of parish work and parish business, should have every facility for due access to these documents; but, at the same time, that these documents should remain in their existing custody. The right hon. Gentleman had divided the documents under three heads—namely, those that were purely ecclesiastical, which were to remain in their present custody, those which were partly ecclesiastical and partly secular, and those which were purely secular—as to which the right hon. Gentleman had said he thought there could be no difference of opinion at all. Although the Vestry was going to continue with practically the same constitution as it had at present, they proposed to take away from that body its own records and history, and to hand them over to a new body. That was a proposal to which they (the Opposition) could not assent. If the Vestry was to continue to exist, why should these documents be given up to a new body? Then, with regard to the more difficult class of records—those which were partly ecclesiastical and partly secular — the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the County Council should be the authority to decide which were ecclesiastical and which not.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, Yes.

Mr. H. H. FOWLER

said, No; they would have no more right to control purely ecclesiastical documents than they would have to the Communion plate.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, they would have to select and choose and decide which was an ecclesiastical and which a secular document. That was rather a curious extension of the powers of the County Council. He admitted it might work fairly well in England; but did the right hon. Gentleman think that a Welsh County Council would be a fair body to decide what was ecclesiastical and what was not? The majority of a Welsh County Council would hold that nothing belonged to the Church. He could not conceive a more preposterous body to decide such a matter than a Welsh County Council. When they considered that the majority of those who would have to decide these questions in Wales were opposed to the Church, and held that nothing, not even church buildings, belong to the Church, they would understand what he meant. He would put a case such as that indicated by the late Attorney General (Sir R. Webster). The Vicar of Harley, in Berkshire, had written to him to the effect that in his parish book, dating from 1699, there were minutes of secular Vestries and of ecclesiastical Vestries alike all in the same volume. Was the County Council to tear out certain pages and hand them over to the Parish Council, and to tear out others and hand them over to the Vestry? The existence of such documents was a very strong argument for leaving them in their present custody. Although this might not appear to be a matter of first importance, it was one of great importance; next to the question of parish rooms, it was the question that excited most interest among the clergy. He had read a very large number of letters from clergymen in every part of the Kingdom asking that the custody of the Vestry documents and other parish records which had remained with them up to the present should remain with them for the future. The only satisfactory reason that could be given for handing these records over to the Parish Council would be that they should be better and more safely kept. He did not think that a Parish Council elected every year would be a better custodian than the existing authorities. His hon. Friends and himself were perfectly willing that the Parish Council should have perfectly free access to the records; but they should remain in their present custody. He begged to move his Amendment as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment. In line 1, to leave out from the word "documents," to the word "remain," in line 4, in in order to insert the word "shall.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, as he understood it, the hon. Member for Thirsk dealt with the exclusion of the registrars of marriages, baptisms, and burials.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I must put the Amendment that has been moved.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

This is a different question.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

This Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Boscawen) has been moved, and I have to put it.

SIR R. WEBSTER

No, Sir. With great respect, it has not been moved, and you have not put it.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

I think it has not been moved.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! The Amendment has been moved. It can be withdrawn when proposed to the Committee; but it has been moved, and I am bound to put it.

MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN

Excuse me, Sir Julian—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! It is the duty of the Chairman when an Amendment has been moved to propose it from the Chair. This Amendment has been moved, and I now propose it.

Question proposed, "That the words 'other than' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he made no apology for again mentioning to the Committee the points that he already dealt with, for when he last spoke he had not had his attention called to the 6th section of the 58th of George IV. which dealt with the question of the keeping of the registry of marriages, baptisms, and burials, and gave directions as to the keeping of them and parish books. He would direct attention to this provision, and he thought they might deal with those registries now.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The question is perfectly in Order as I have put it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is at liberty to move any words afterwards.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government were not going to argue this point. The Solicitor General was of opinion that the matter was clearly understood; but if an authority of the high eminence and great legal standing of the late Attorney General had any doubt they would further consider it. They did not mean that those registers should be interfered with, and he would suggest an Amendment in this form—after "other than," leave out "those," and insert "registers."

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee must be decided in the first instance.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, of course; and in that case he would like to clear the ground between them. What was the point of difference? He understood they had before them a proposal with reference to the retention of these documents and their custody. By the Bill they were constituting a new secular authority, and his view was that all secular documents should be placed in the custody of that authority. They believed that that was the best way in which these documents could be kept, and thought they would be better kept in that way than they were now. He was quite willing to recognise the sentiment—or, perhaps, he should say, any higher feeling—entertained by Churchmen with regard to documents partly ecclesiastical and partly secular, and he would listen to any suggestion with regard to their custody. But so far as this Amendment was concerned it would place them in a false position as regarded secular documents. The Parish Council was entitled, in his opinion, to the custody of the secular documents of the parish—past, present and future. With regard to what had been said as to the probable action of the Welsh County Council, he did not think anyone would agree that a County Council would act in the manner which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Boscawen) had thought fit to suggest. There was no necessity for contesting this question. If the hon. Gentleman opposite would suggest what it was he required, they would endeavour to deal with the matter. He (Mr. Fowler) must, however, stand on the principle that secular documents relating to the parish ought to be in the custody of the Parish Council.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

asked what did the Government propose? They proposed to hand over the historical documents relating to the parish to those whom the Parish Council might wish or direct to receive them.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The secular documents only.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, there were many documents which, though not ecclesiastical, were part and parcel of the history of the parish, written by the officers of the Church, and under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal these documents would be placed in the hands of the secular authority. Where were they to be taken to? They might be taken to a neighbouring town. The Government were not justified in sweeping away the old historical documents and parish libraries, and handing them over to the custody of persons who had not yet provided a chest or a house to place them in. There were many examples of the destruction of ancient documents by Municipalities, especially at the beginning of the century. Almost all the Welsh records in Carnarvonshire had been lost owing to careless custodians having carted them away because they could not read them, being written in Latin. It might be that the documents would get into the hands of a clerk who would take them to his home, and they would ultimately be lost. They should always separate ancient from modern documents. The Parish Council did not need anything to begin with except a minute-book, and there was no need for its going to the expense of buying a safe. New machinery should be of the simplest character. What was the idea? Anyone who wanted to see a certain document would have first to go to the Council, and then to the Vicar. That would be very inconvenient. All the Parish Council required was access to these documents. Why, the proposal was a gratuitous insult to the Church. The provision suggested by the Government was, in his opinion, only a provision for the better destruction of parish documents.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

said, he doubted whether the draftsman and enabled the right hon. Gentleman to carry out what he intended by this Amendment. The clause said that the documents should either remain in their existing custody, or such custody as the Parish Council might direct. But so long as they remained in their existing custody, there was no means whereby the Parish Council could get access to them, nor was there any provision to show that the ordinary was bound to obey the orders of the Parish Council. If they looked at Sub-section 8—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! Sub-section 8 is not now the question.

MR. DARLING

said, he only referred to that sub-section for the purpose of showing the provision as to the person who could be called upon to obey the Council. The section as it stood raised the greatest doubt as to whether the right hon. Gentleman had done what he desired to do, and, whether this Amendment was carried or not, all the Ordinary would have to do, it seemed to him (Mr. Darling), was, when he got the documents, to stick to them.

MR. THORNTON (Clapham)

said, that he had had some experience of valuable documents in village communities, and he desired to say that the Parish Councils could not be expected to take proper care of such documents. He did not speak without having had some experience. Four or five years ago, with an expert of the British Museum, he had had access to a chest containing the history of Harrow School, and he then saw documents of almost priceless value nearly destroyed in consequence of not having been properly taken care of. Well, if documents suffered when under the care of cultured men like the masters of Harrow School, in succeeding generations how could it be expected that they would be safe in the hands of Parish Councils? He did not mean to say that all villagers were non-literary. Indeed, although a fair sprinkling of men capable of guarding these documents existed amongst the country clergy, it would not be true to say that the present system was nearly perfect. They might find plenty of villagers perfectly capable of taking care of historical documents, but he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had gone fully into the matter and really thought that the best custodians of these priceless papers which, if half secular and half ecclesiastical, practically contained a mediæval history of England would be the Parish Councils. The ecclesiastical and secular history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is contained in these documents. He did not think, therefore, having regard to their value, that they should be confided to people less able to take care of them than those who had had the keeping of them hitherto. He thought it right to make this protest (which was founded on considerable experience) against the proposal of the Government.

MR. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

said, he was acquainted with an educational charity, of some importance, which happened to have a small dole attached to it amounting to 40s. a year. He wished to ask if the books of that educational charity would have to be transferred to the Parish Council under this Amendment, in consequence of the dole. It seemed to him that inasmuch as educational charities were the most important there should be words inserted in the Amendment preserving to the present trustees the care of the books.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

said, he should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether or not he was right in supposing that the clause would operate only in the case of existing documents? If the clause would be so limited, the word "existing" should be inserted. In reply to the hon. Member for Shropshire, he thought he was at liberty to say that if there should happen to be parochial books and other documents in the possession of Nonconformist Bodies, they would consider it no insult whatever to have them handed over to the Parish Council; but he would be surprised to find that any such documents are in their possession.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

wished to ask whether under parish books and documents, maps would be included, such as an ordnance maps which many parishes had acquired. Very often the person who had charge of the parish map did not know where to put it. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of awards under the Enclosure Acts as being documents of a purely secular character. No doubt they were, but the right hon. Gentleman would know that most of these were by law deposited with the Clerk of the Peace of the county, who was now clerk to the County Council. Would the Amendment require these awards to be taken out of their present custody?

MR. BILL (Staffordshire, Leek)

said, that no doubt there were many members of the Committee who were or had been Churchwardens. As one himself of 28 or 30 years' standing, he should like to back up the appeal made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge. In the parish in which he lived the Vestry book dated back from the beginning of the century. It contained, for the most part, the minutes of the parish in its ecclesiastical aspect; but, at the same time, interspersed amongst these minutes there were minutes of the election of Overseers, Assistant Overseers, and Highway Surveyors. The book in this way had a twofold character. At the same time it would not be right, he thought, from a Church point of view, that such a book should be taken out of the custody of the Church officials. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to consider what would happen if the Bill passed and the Parish Council obtained possession of a book such as he had described. The Easter Vestry would take place at the usual time, but it would be without its Vestry book, and the officials would have to go hat in hand to the Parish Council and ask for the loan of the book before the minutes could be inserted. The Committee would see that a proceeding of that kind would be derogatory to the Church. He therefore supported the appeal of the hon. Member for Tunbridge.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that a map would be a document under the clause. As to the enclosure awards, two copies of these were always made. One of these would be deposited with the Clerk of the Peace, and the other would be the parish document.

MR. A. C. MORTON

asked if the right hon. Gentleman's reply would apply to the tithe map?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, he wished to know if provision would be made for the official custody of these documents, for the Amendment only said "be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct." Was it not desirable to go more into detail on a matter of this kind? A good deal ought to be left to the discretion of Public Bodies; but it must be remembered that the Parish Council, especially in the case of small parishes, might consist of persons who were not perhaps antiquarian or particularly well practised with the custody of documents, and he thought some provision should be made in the Bill for these documents to be duly taken care of. Some reference had been made to the fact that many documents had suffered whilst in the custody of those who were at present responsible for them. He was afraid that was the case, and he thought some provision ought to be made for the proper custody of the documents. He did not know if the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring words up to this. Very properly the right hon. Gentleman had left the ultimate responsibility in the County Council; but did he propose that that body should send out a roving commission to make inquiries all over the country? He (Mr. Lowther) took the second part of the Amendment to mean that if the attention of the County Council were drawn to the fact that the parish documents were not being properly cared for, they ought to take the necessary steps to insure their safe custody. So far as the care of the document, in the first instance, was concerned, the matter was now left to the absolute discretion of the Parish Council, and there was then to be this nebulous intervention on the part of the County Council. He did not think that if the Amendment were left in its present form the County Council would think it within its province to interfere. The right hon. Gentleman should indicate what machinery the County Council should adopt for the efficient exercise of what he might call this appellate jurisdiction.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, that what struck him was the inadequacy of the provision for the care of these documents. The Parish Council would have no place where they could be put. There was no regular place now. They were kept where it was most convenient to keep them, and generally they had remained in the custody of the Incumbent of the parish. Under the Bill it would be difficult to see how the Incumbents were still to exercise that supervision, because, to a large extent, they would be ousted from their position. Still there was a suggestion in the clause which, if it were extended and made a little more definite would answer the purpose. The Amendment said— Shall either remain in their existing custody, or. be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct. If some words were added to show that the Parish Council was not to remove the documents unless they had, to the satisfaction of somebody or other, found a better place for them, the security of those documents would be provided for. He supposed the proper place for keeping parish documents at present was the vestry of the church, but that, owing to dampness, was not always good for storing papers. To store them in the Incumbent's house laid them open to the danger of fire. In his own parish they were kept in the National schoolroom, and that in other parishes might be considered a satisfactory place. Of course, it would be a good thing to have in the parish a strong room such as could be found at the bankers', but that was out of the question in country villages, and it would be inconvenient to take the books and documents to a neighbouring town, as it would prevent ready access to them. He would suggest this was not an ecclesiastical question; it was an archæological and antiquarian question. It was most important that the documents should all be kept together, proper access to them being secured as might be required.

MR. MACDONA (Southwark, Rotherhithe)

said, that he had had charge of parochial documents for many years. They were in many cases most valuable, and he could not see where the religious element came in. He appealed to hon. Members on either side of the House whether it was not within their experience that many of these documents which were most valuable historically, were very carelessly kept. He knew cases in which public-houses in the neighbourhood of the Church had been the depositories of many of these documents. He would vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tunbridge in so far as he was unwilling to allow Parish Councils to have charge of these documents. He (Mr. Macdona) would go further—and perhaps some Churchmen would think he was prepared to go too far—and say that he would take everyone of these documents away and deposit them where the Magna Charta itself was stored—namely, in the Rolls Court in London. He would do that without inflicting any injury on any of the present custodians of these documents, whom he would allow to retain their fees. Furthermore he would have copies of the documents made and deposited in the parish if the Parish Council desired to have them, and he would make these copies evidence in a Court of Law.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he had endeavoured to frame some words to carry out his intention, and they would appear in form on the Paper to-morrow, so that they could be further considered. His proposal was that all parish books and documents other than registers of marriages, baptisms, and burials, and books or documents containing entries wholly or partly relating to the affairs of the Church, or to ecclesiastical charities, should remain in their existing custody; but that all other parish books or documents should either remain in their existing custody or should be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council should direct. He submitted that that was an honest proposal to carry out the spirit of the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board. With regard to the historical part of the matter it was agreed that it was not necessary to hand over to the Parish Council any ancient documents—that was to say, documents 50 or 100 years old—and some words might be inserted in the proposed clause to exempt such document. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that documents relating to Overseers' duties and matters of a secular character should be in the custody of the Parish Council, or that the Council should have access to such of them as were not in their custody. But from a historical point of view, he doubted if it were desirable to hand over ancient documents to a Body that was going to be a practical working Body. The Amendment he proposed would, he hoped, tend to shorten the discussion on the new clause of the Government.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for having formulated his views in the shape of Amendments, and he could assure him that they would receive the most friendly consideration of the Government. They would probably form the basis of a satisfactory settlement of a most difficult question.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.