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

HC Deb 14 December 1893 vol 19 cc1438-84

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 12th December.]

[TWENTIETH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Clause 16 (Officers of the Parish Council).

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 35, at the 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 added."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line l, to leave oat from the words " documents," to the word " remain," in line 4, in order to insert the word " shall."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

said, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster), he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name. It was— In line 1, leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 4, and insert " The custody of the registers of baptisms, marriages, and births, and of all other books and documents containing entries wholly or partly relating to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, except documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall remain, as provided by the existing law, unaffected by this Act. All other public books, writings, and papers of the parish.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member withdraw the Amendment in his own name?

MR. GRIFFITH - BOSCAWEN

Yes, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the Member for the Isle of Wight, which had been resolved upon as a compromise. ' It kept in the custody of the registrars of baptisms, marriages, and births, all documents of a purely ecclesiastical character and those that were partly ecclesiastical, except such documents as were directed to be kept elsewhere according to the provisions of existing law. He hoped this would be regarded as a fair and reasonable compromise. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out from beginning, to "shall," in line 4, and insert—" The custody of the registers of baptisms, marriages, and births, and of all other books and documents containing entries wholly or partly relating to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, except documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall remain, as provided by the existing law, unaffected by this Act. All other public books, writings, and papers of the parish.

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

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

said, the purely secular books of the parish would be put into the custody of the new authorities; and documents of the character of minute books and books containing ecclesiastical references or entries would remain as they were, and both parties in the parish would have reference to them if required. In his judgment an amicable arrangement would be come to on that point. It was purely or largely, at any rate, an archæological question in which all were interested, and he was advised by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby)—whose absence this evening, and more especially the cause of it, they all deplored—that the Amendment might be accepted.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)

was understood to say there were other matters which ought to be included in this Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, those other matters had no practical application in this Amendment.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

asked, what was to be done about tithe maps? They formed the evidence of the rector to his tithes; and, if they were taken away, how was the rector to prove his title? It could not be said that a tithe map was a secular document. It belonged to the affairs of the Church much more than to any one else. If they took the case of a parish where disturbance had arisen regarding tithes, he thought if the map were given over to secular control, it would be destroyed. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was just to take away such evidence of title.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he would call attention to the words at the end of the sub-section as it stood—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That will come up by-and-bye.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could not accept the proposal of the Member for Thirsk. He had already laid it down plainly that the Government would take their stand on secular books and papers.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman that he had come to an arrangement in this matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. He (Mr. Balfour) had not been cognizant of that, but if that were the case—and no doubt it was—the Opposition would adhere to the arrangement.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment (Sir R. Webster) agreed to.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Petersfield (Mr. Wick-ham). It appeared to him that the Parish Council would be a name that would not have a local habitation. There would be no place in which to put the books and documents, and he thought that until such place was provided the books and documents ought to remain with their present custodians.

Amendment proposed, In line 4, to leave out from the word " custody," to the word " and," in line 5, and insert the words " until such time as the Parish Council shall have provided a fit and proper place for their safe custody."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought the hon. Member had overlooked one part of the clause which provided that the books should either remain in their existing custody or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct. Well, if the Parish Council had no local habitation the books and papers would remain where they were. The Parish Council would be vested with the power to procure a parish chest, and would either have to take charge of the documents or be deprived of them altogether.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he did not understand the clause. The documents would either remain in their existing custody or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council might direct. As he understood it, that was a direct alternative, and if the existing custodians chose to retain the documents they would be at liberty to do so. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that, or that the documents should be removed at the will of the Parish Council?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the matter was one of draftsmanship. The documents would remain in the charge of their existing custodians or not, as the Parish Council directed.

MR. W. LONG

said, it was not a question of draftsmanship, but a question of English. There was a direct alternative in the Amendment; therefore, it appeared to him that the documents would in all likelihood remain where they were. If that was the intention of the clause he had no objection to it. He would rather stand by the clause than have it altered; but if the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government was to cast on the Parish Council the obligation of deciding whether or not the documents were to remain in the hands of the present custodians he thought there was a practical difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman did not quite appreciate. It was hard for hon. Members to be accused of obstructive tactics when they desired to have an explanation of a clause of this kind, which was so obscure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill did not understand it himself, and in the course of a couple of minutes or so had put two different constructions on it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had no right to complain of the Opposition if they were unable to understand the Amendment. He (Mr. Long) should be content if the proposal contained two direct alternatives, but if the power of directing that the documents should either remain where they were or should be removed to some other place were to be left to the will of the Parish Council he ventured to submit that they were laying on the Council a task that it would be difficult to perform. A Parish Council would not be like a Local Board or a Municipal Corporation. It would not have a safe or any other place where documents of this kind could be properly taken care of.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that what he understood the clause to mean, and what he was advised that it did mean, was that the parish books should remain in the existing custody if no one interfered or took action in the matter. If the Council was dissatisfied with their remaining where they were it would direct them to be deposited somewhere else. That was his meaning, and he deemed that it was not inconsistent with anything he had said.

MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

wished to call attention to the subsequent words— And any difference as to custody or access shall be determined by the County Council. The documents were to remain in their existing custody or be deposited where the Parish Council directed. He apprehended that the persons who at present held the documents would desire to continue to hold them, and would be allowed to do so for the present, and that if there was any dispute it would be referred to the County Council, and that then, if the County Council decided in favour of any change, they would be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct. That appeared to him to be the way the clause would work out in practice.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, they were very nearly in accord with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. He wished to know, however, whether the Parish Council could commit the care of the document to a person residing outside the parish. He was anxious that they should be kept within the parish, and would, therefore, suggest that after the words "in such custody" the words "in the parish" should be added.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they must give the Parish Councillors credit for acting in these matters in a businesslike way. They might send the papers to New Zealand, but he did not think such a thing was within the range of probability—hardly of possibility.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said it was desirable to avoid ambiguity. The words " as the Parish Council may direct " might have two meanings. They might mean that the Council might direct whether the documents might remain in the existing custody, or be deposited in the custody of other persons, or the word "as" might simply refer to "such custody," and in that case the direction to the Parish Council went to this extent—namely, that if the papers did not remain in their existing custody, then the Parish Council might say where they were to go to. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board aright, he meant to put the first construction on the words. He (Mr. Hobhouse) would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, if he wished to carry out his own intention without ambiguity, he should put in "according as the Parish Council may direct." The Deputy Chairman had put the Amendment before the Committee in such a way as to exclude an Amendment which he (Mr. Hobhouse) had intend to move.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That is out of Order after the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, they were not told what circumstances would direct the adoption of the second alternative. It seemed to him that the words should read " unless the Parish Council otherwise direct."

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, they had heard a good deal to-night about urging this Bill forward, but it seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had taken up a great deal of time with an Amendment which ought not to have occupied more than a couple of minutes. He wished to say a word as to the importance of these documents, not from a Church or a local point of view, but from a national point of view. They were talking about the most valuable documents which the country possess. These records of parish meetings which, to ordinary people, would seem like a lot of musty old documents, useful to nobody, were of the highest national value. Those who bad read them found that they contained records of everything connected with the life of centuries ago. They referred to the prices of labour, of corn, of land, and so on, and were the main source of our knowledge of the life of old England—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I submit that all this has already been disposed of by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. We have decided that these documents are to remain as they are.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

The ecclesiastical documents?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No; all of them.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that there was something else dealt with on the Amendment besides Vestry minutes. All the parish documents would be affected, but the Parish Council would begin with brand new books, and might look upon the ancient records as a nuisance. They would not know what to do with them, though they were documents which, from a national point of view, ought to be most carefully looked after. They referred to a variety of matters non-ecclesiastical. They referred to all the revels of the olden times, to pounds, stocks, ducking stools for scolding women, and a number of things which the historian and writer in the olden times, when he wished to paint a vivid picture of old English life, was obliged to have recourse to.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman will see that the point in dispute is— Shall either remain in their existing custody or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct. The point is not as to what the papers are, but what shall be the custody of them.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he quite understood the position, but he wished to base on the value of these records an argument for their safe custody. At present these documents were kept in a suitable place. If they were placed in the hands of the Parish Council they would not be so safe. That body was to be changed every year. The Chairman this year might not be the Chairman next year. It had been suggested that each parish should have an iron safe, but it must be borne in mind that they were dealing with small and poor parishes. There were nearly 8,000 out of the 13,000 parishes of below 400 population. Between 4,000 and 5,000 of these parishes were of below 200 population with a correspondingly small income, and yet, very often in these parishes the documents were of the greatest value. To ask one of these Councils to spend £20 or £25 on an iron safe would be to ask it for the whole of its income. He was urging the right hon. Gentleman to have regard to the question of security. At any rate, if the right hon. Gentleman carried his point, and insisted upon the Parish Council taking charge of these documents, there ought to be a grant from the National Exchequer to provide security for them. The Parish Council could not provide a safe, seeing that it was limited to a 6d. rate.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman must speak to the Question before the Committee.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, this was an important question. [Cries of "Order!"] Ask Mr. Lecky or any historian in the country, and he would tell them that it would be the greatest loss to the country if these papers were destroyed. Under the Parish Council they might be entrusted to a man who would keep them in a cupboard, and anyone acquainted with a cupboard in a four-roomed house would know that that was a receptacle for a great many things. To put these documents in such a place would practically be to destroy them. Why should they not remain where they were? They should be kept in a place of security, and there should be access to them at all reasonable times. Why did not the Government provide for this, and dispose of the subject under discussion in a couple of minutes. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, by letting them remain where they were.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Gentleman insisted that this was a question of great importance, and he (Mr. Fowler) was as fully alive to the fact as anyone. Probably the right hon. Gentleman was not present when the Bill was last in Committee and when he (Mr. Fowler) had arranged to accept an Amendment by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight, who had pointed out the importance of the question and the dangers adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Fowler) had spent a great part of last night and of to-day in arriving at an agreement with the hon. and learned Member. He had come to the decision that the documents should remain in their existing custody, and the hon. and learned Gentleman with whom he had been in conference was satisfied with that result. He did not intend to depart from that understanding.

SIR E. TEMPLE

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to allow the Parish Council to send these documents out of the parish?

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, it would be inconvenient to leave these papers in the hands of parish clerks, many of whom might live outside the parishes. He knew the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was with them in this matter, but did not think he appreciated this point as strongly as they did. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had known a case where a Churchwarden had placed the parish papers in a public-house, where they had remained until rescued by an antiquarian.

MR. W. LONG

said, he largely but not entirely agreed with the views expressed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Jesse Collings), and he largely shared some of the fears expressed by gentlemen on this (the Opposition) side of the House that what was proposed in the clause would be found somewhat difficult to carry out. In view of the position taken up by the President of the Local Government Board he would suggest to his hon. Friends that it would not be fair or desirable or profitable to press on the Government any change of view.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

desired to ask the President of the Local Government Board to consider one point before the Report. There were heaps of papers, some of them single sheets of paper—he had seen them himself—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has said that several times before.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

said, he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name, which was— In line 5, after the word "direct," insert "and where, after the passing of this Act, one portion of an ancient parish is a rural parish with a Parish Council, and another portion is an urban district with a District Council, all such books and documents shall either remain in their existing custody or be deposited in such custody as the County Council may direct. There were many parishes, one part of each of which was situated in a rural sanitary district and the other part in an urban sanitary district, and in those cases the rural part of the parish would have a Parish Council and the urban part a District Council. His point was that a question might arise as to the custody of documents. Both parts of the parish would be equally interested, as in the case of tithe maps; and his suggestion was that the County Council should have charge of all such documents. He could give two cases of parishes thus situated. In one the parish church and the Vestry meeting place were in the urban part of the parish, and of course, it would be absurd to suppose that these documents could be taken from that part of the parish and handed over to the Parish Council. In the second ease, the parish church and the place where the Vestry meeting was held were situated in the rural part of the parish, and he thought the rural part of the parish would be unwilling to give up these documents to the Council controlling the other part— especially as in the case of tithe maps, the rural part of the parish would have more interest in the documents than the urban. He had placed the Amendment on the Paper with a view to calling attention to the matter so that the necessary alterations might be carried out, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would give his attention to the matter.

Amendment proposed, In line 5, after "direct," insert "and where, after the passing of this Act, one portion of an ancient parish is a rural parish with a Parish Council, and another portion is an urban district with a District Council, all such books and documents shall either remain in their existing-custody or be deposited in such custody as the County Council may direct.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite appreciated the intention of the hon. Member, and agreed with him that it was necessary to make such a provision. The matter would not be lost sight of; and, if they found that the point raised was not covered, words dealing with it would be inserted, when they came to a, later stage, at which the question could be properly raised.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, it was quite clear from the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight that there were two classes of document—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! That does not refer to this question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Macdona)— In line 7, after the word "documents," to insert the words "upon payment of the customary fees. There were eases in which this provision would be necessary.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite appreciated the idea of the hon. Member who put down the Amendment, but he must point out that there was a division of jurisdiction. His Amendment dealt with inspection by the Incumbent and Churchwardens on the one hand and the Parish Council on the other, and in either case the inspection would be free. Fees would be charged only when strangers came in.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, there were statutory fees in many cases for the inspection of documents. The official inspection, to which the right hon. Gentle-referred, would be free; but that would not apply to cases that were not official. He thought some words ought to be inserted, otherwise difficulties would arise.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL, Hackney, S.)

said, what the learned Gentleman said was quite true; but the clause excluded outsiders from the privileges he mentioned.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved to add at the end of the clause— (8) Every County Council shall from time to time inquire into the manner in which the parish books and documents are kept with a view to the proper preservation thereof and shall make such orders as they think necessary for such preservation, and those orders shall be complied with by the Parish Council or parish meeting.

Question proposed, "That the Subsection be there added."

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wished to move, in line 1, to leave out "shall" and insert "may." The question of "shall" and "may" had been raised before; but it was well to raise it in this case, because they had here the words "from time to time." What did those words mean? They imposed a duty upon the County Council, and left no discretion to that Council as to when they would carry out the duty. He submitted that the word should be "may" rather than "shall." By "shall" they compelled the County Council to carry out the duty. The Bill, however, gave no power to anyone to compel them to act.

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) was not in his place. If he were he would give an angry reply, he thought, to the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. This was, in fact, a proposal of the Government favoured by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley for the safeguarding of documents. It was the duty of the Council to inquire into this matter; and why should they not? And if it was necessary they should do so, why should it not be provided for in the clause?

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wanted to know how often they were to inspect the documents—once a year, or every six months, or how often? The words from "time to time" were vague.

Question, "That the word 'shall,' stand part of the Sub-section," put, and agreed to.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he begged to move to amend the Amendment by providing that the documents in question should be documents "in the custody of the Parish Council." The result would be to limit the right of inquiry to those documents which were given over to the Parish Council to keep. There might be cases in which the Vestry had not kept their documents as well as they should have done; but, granting that, the proper authority to inquire into the matter should be some ecclesiastical authority, and not any secular authority. He thought he was only carrying out the intention of the Government by moving this Amendment.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted in the proposed Amendment be there inserted."

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment as being in the spirit of the compromise already arrived at, that documents partaking of an ecclesiastical character should remain in ecclesiastical custody. This was no right why they should go under any secular authority.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought it was evident that the sub-section referred entirely to Parish Council or parish meeting documents. They could not go into the question of the custody of documents not under the control of these bodies—documents that were outside the purview of the Bill. Personally, he very much wished they could, but they could not. He rather thought, from the letter of Mr. Sidney Lee in The Times and other sources of information, that there were a great many of these valuable documents which were not so well kept as they should be; but he saw no feasible way of dealing with the matter. He would suggest that, instead of "custody," the word "control" should be substituted. "Under the control of the Parish Council" would meet the case, he thought.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he was prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved to insert the words, "Under the control of the Parish Council."

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted."

MR. TOMLINSON

asked why they should not add "parish meeting?"

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Oh, no.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, he would move at the end of the sub-section to omit the words "parish meeting." He did not see why the parish meeting should be included; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter before Report, in which event he would not press the Amendment. He could not understand what power the parish meeting had with regard to custody of documents.

Amendment proposed, At the end of the Sub-section to leave out the words " parish meeting."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government had endeavoured to carry out the views of the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), and that was the reason for the inclusion of the parish meeting. There would be an opportunity on a later clause for dealing with this matter, and if the Committee then thought fit, they could say whether the words should be retained.

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

said, he would like to know the precise effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. What power would the County Council have to make orders for the preservation of these documents? Supposing it made an order that precautions should be taken; who was to compel the Parish Council to carry it out?

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, ample power was given to the County Council to act in the matter.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said it seemed to him that the County Council had no sufficient power in the matter.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was very cumbersome. The County Council was to see that the books and documents were to kept in proper preservation. If a mandate were issued by the County Council, what if the Parish Council had no money with which to carry that mandate out? Were they to have actions brought and costs given against the Parish Council, or were the members of the Parish Council to be imprisoned for non-compliance—for not doing that which they were unable to do?

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, the Amendment applied not only to the exercise of the powers of the County Council in respect of the Parish Council, but also of the parish meeting. As he read the Amendment, the County Council was to look after the preservation of books and documents—

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he would venture to point out to his hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson Bowles) that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was quite satisfactory. The parish meeting would have the same power as the Parish Council.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, as a member of a County Council, it would be well they should know whether, where there were, say, 400 parishes in a country, the Council was to send Commissioners to inquire how the parish documents in each in- stance were kept, or were they to content themselves with issuing Circulars on the subject?

SIR C. RUSSELL

A reasonable mode by which these inquiries of the County Council as to the condition of parish documents shall from time to time be made would be by Circular, which, I am sure, the Parish Authorities will deem it their duty to courteously answer. A still easier way would be to get the representatives of the different parishes on the County Council to say what was the condition of the documents.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he thought that mode impracticable. If he, as a member of the County Council, were asked on the spur of the moment, what was the state of the documents of the parishes in his division he would not be able to answer. Members of the County Council did not carry such information in their minds, and they could only arrive at it by an elaborate perambulation of the parishes they represented. The Government proposed to place an additional burden on the County Council which it might not be able to bear. He did not say that it was not a proper thing for the Council to do, but it was quite a new function, and it ought to be made clear how the County Council was to discharge it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Immense duties will be devolved on the County Councils by the Bill, but we do not tell the County Councils how they are to discharge those duties. The County County Councils are composed of capable and responsible men, and we cannot say to them—"You are to do a certain thing in a certain way." A small County Council may do it in one way, and a large County Council in another way. The hon. Gentleman complains of this as a burden imposed on the County Council. An appeal was made to the Government to do something in this direction on account of the negligent manner in which documents have been kept, and the Government put in this clause, made it a statutory duty of the County Council, in such manner as they think best to inquire into the condition of parish documents, and make it the duty of the Parish Councils to act on their directions in that regard. I am satisfied with the clause as it stands, and I think our proposal is the proper thing to do.

MR. BONSOR (Surrey, Wimbledon)

said, he objected to these new duties being cast on the County Council. A short time ago the Councils had had the Shop Hours Act placed upon them, and they were asked to appoint Inspectors to go over the country to see that the provisions of the Act were carried out. The result was that the Act was a dead letter. He believed that if the Government placed on the County Councils the duty of seeing after the various parish documents, they would arrive at no practical effect. If the Government wanted those documents kept in order, the proper authority to go to was the Parish Council, which should be given power to take charge of the documents.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, that the County Council had now got to revise all the sanitary affairs of all the parishes in the county. But that did not mean that the County Council were to send men to perambulate through the country to see that there was nothing wrong. It meant that if anyone saw anything wrong in his parish, he could appeal to the County Council. He took it that it would be the same with the parish documents.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, that he had personal experience of the great inconvenience caused by the loss of parish documents in the case of enclosure rewards, and as some provision was necessary to preserve these documents in the future, he hoped the Government would press this Amendment.

Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 17 (Provision as to large parishes.)

MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk) moved to amend the clause in line 36, after the words "by the," by the insertion of "parish meeting, or." The effect of the Amendment would be to give the parish meeting power of reporting their wishes in regard to this matter before the formation of the Parish Council. The large parishes existed perhaps in a greater degree in the North of England than in other parts of the country, and he might mention that in his own constituency there was a parish containing 5,000 or 6,000 people, and in a parish of that kind it would be very difficult to have a representative meeting for the election of the Parish Council. His wish was to have this question of dividing the parish into wards or districts brought before the parish meeting at the outset, and not after the formation of the Parish Council. This was the precedent set in municipal boroughs. When a municipal borough was going to be incorporated and divided into wards, the first process was to divide the wards, and then arrange for the representation afterwards.

Amendment proposed, in line 36, after the words "by the," to insert the words " parish meeting, or."—(Mr. Forwood.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think the right hon. Gentleman has not quite grasped the framework of the Bill. By the clauses we have already enacted there is no question of the parish meeting having any jurisdiction whatever in the matter. The Parish Council will be formed immediately on the Bill receiving the Royal Assent. There is no analogy between the present case and a municipal borough being incorporated. The Amendment is inconsistent with the framework of the Bill, which, as I have said, provides that there must be a Parish Council for every parish with a certain population. I prefer the clause as it stands.

MR. FORWOOD

said, his desire was to secure that before the election took place in a large parish, that parish should be divided into districts or wards, and that each district or ward should have the opportunity of electing its own representative to form part of the Parish Council. In the parish of Lydiate, in his constituency, there were four or five large townships, and unless some suggestion like his was adopted these places would be very inadequately represented in the Parish Council elected by the parish meeting. If the Amendment were adopted he should proceed further, by moving to insert after "parish," in line 38, the words— Or any township forming part of such parish, containing not less than 300 inhabitants.'

SIR J. DORINGTON

said, he thought that what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division would not be accomplished by the words proposed, because the parish meeting did not come into effect at once, and the ward arrangements were wanted before anything was done. He suggested the addition of words giving the County Council power to move in toe matter before "the appointed day."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not think that would meet the difficulty. It would introduce a new authority in conflict with the other one. I should prefer the clause as it stands. Suppose the Parish Council does not be elected, you have a provision by which one sixth of the parochial electors may make an application to the County Council, if necessary. If one-sixth be considered too large, I will consider a proposal to reduce it.

MR. W. LONG

said, he did not think the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would meet the difficulty. The parish meeting would assemble to elect the Parish Council, and as under the Bill the wards would not be brought into existence previous to that election, they would have in those large populous parishes in the North of England, each comprising two or more townships of varying population, the Parish Council elected by the majority of those who could conveniently attend the parish meeting, and consequently there would be no protection for minorities. The difficulty lay in the fact that the members of the Parish Council would be elected for the whole of the parish, as the wards would not be brought into existence previous to the election. The evil might afterwards be remedied, but undoubtedly in the first election the minority of the parish would not have a fair share of the representation. If the Amendment of his-right hon. Friend were accepted, it would bring a new authority into the field, but, at the same time, it would deal with this difficulty.

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, that care was taken of the interests of the minority by the provision giving one-sixth of the parochial electors powers to move in the matter, and the President of the Local Government Board was prepared to consider a proposal for a reduction of that number.

MR. FORWOOD

said, he should insist that the proper course to take would be to divide the parish into wards before there was any parish election.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

suggested that the application for the division of a parish into wards should be made by one-tenth of the parochial electors, instead of one-sixth as provided by the Bill. He thought that would best secure the object of the Member for Ormskirk.

MR. FORWOOD

said, that if his point were met in that way by the President of the Local Government Board he would withdraw his Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am quite willing to assent to the alteration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 27, to leave out " one-sixth," in order to insert "one-tenth."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. FORWOOD

said that, after the word "parish," In page 11, line 38, he proposed to insert the words " or one-sixth of the parochial electors in any township forming part of such parish, and containing not less than 300 inhabitants. His object was to give to every parish, or section of a large parish, an opportunity of being heard on this question of a division of the parish into wards.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 38, after the word " parish," insert, " or one-sixth of the parochial electorate in any township forming part of such parish, and not containing less than 300 inhabitants.'— (Mr. Forwood.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

remarked that the right hon. Gentleman said that if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset were accepted he would withdraw his Amendment, and now he proposed it in another guise, which he (Mr. Fowler) was not prepared to accept.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 11, line 39, after the word " large," to insert the words " or different parts of the population so situated.

MAJOR DARWIN

said that, before proceeding to his Amendment, he wished to point out there were five Amendments standing in his name, but he did not father the last two. These were as follows:— Page 12, line 1, after " that," leave out to end of line 2, and insert " these divisions shall have for the purposes of this Act the same powers, duties, and responsibilities as rural parishes. In page 12, line 3, leave out " County Council," and insert " Local Government Board.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he might save time if he said at once he proposed to accept the first three and not the last two.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 40, after the word " inconvenient," to insert the words " or that it is desirable for any reason that certain parts of the parish should be separately represented on the Council."—(Major Darwin.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 41, to leave out the words "that purpose," and insert the words "the purpose of electing Councillors."—(Major Darwin.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 41, after the word " wards," to insert the words " to be called parish wards."— (Major Darwin.)

Amendment agreed to.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he wished to move, in page 12, line 2, after the word " ward," to insert— The County Councils shall fix the number of Councillors in each ward according to the population of each ward. If that was the intention of the Government, it would be better to introduce those words but if the Government preferred any other form of words he was agreeable.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 2, after the word " ward," to insert the words " the County Council shall fix the number of Councillors in each ward according to the population of each ward.—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)

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

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

thought these words unduly limited the discretion of the County Council. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not accept these words. It would, he thought, be better for the County Council to divide them into wards as they thought desirable.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Act of 1888 provided that in the arrangement of the electoral divisions population should be taken as the guiding principle upon which those divisions should be defined. He remembered in the discussion on the clause the point raised by the hon. Gentleman was the question of rateable value. They, then sitting on that side of the House, said they must be guided by population entirely. He was somewhat taken by surprise by the present Amendment, and he had not had time to look into the question.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to their view on that occasion. The words of the 51st section of the Act of 1888 were— The division shall be arranged with a view to the population of each division being as nearly as conveniently may be equal, regard being had to the distribution and pursuits of such population. It was evident on the face of that clause the meaning of it at that time was that they should have the idea of equality and uniformity subject to the conditions of the pursuits and distribution of the population. The leading idea should be to sub-divide a district into electoral districts according to population, but they should modify that according to other conditions such as the pursuits and distribution of the population. As he understood, his right hon. Friend left it to the President of the Local Government Board to meet it in some way that might be practicable and sufficient. Perhaps his right hon. Friend who moved the Amendment would be prepared to adopt and accept the words of the Act of 1888.

MR. W. LONG

said, the interpretation the right hon. Gentleman placed upon their Act was not accurate; it was, he thought, that rateable value should be taken into account, and also the pursuits of the people and the characteristics of the neighbourhood.

SIR C. W. DILKE

felt quite sure that what his right hon. Friend had said, and what had been said from the Front Bench opposite, had weight. The words of his Amendment might be too strict, and might be held to be an absolute direction to have regard to population alone, and he was, therefore, quite willing to ask leave to withdraw his Amendment in order to substitute— in fixing the number of Councillors in each ward the County Council shall have regard to population. That left it open to them to show that population should be a matter mainly borne in view, and allowed the earrying into effect of the other considerations to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had called attention. If that was not accepted, and he was forced to a Division, he would rather divide on the stronger form of words.

MR. STANSFELD

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would not be content with the very words of the 51st section of the Act of 1888?

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the actual words of the section would not apply to this clause as this was not a question of single Member constituencies. The clause was a slight clause, and would hardly bear so elaborate a form of. words as those of the Act of 1888. In the Act of 1888 they were dealing with the matter on a large scale, whereas in this case they were only dealing with comparatively small rural parishes, and he should have thought the words he suggested better than the elaborate form of words in the section.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he might perhaps point out that if the form of words suggested were adopted it would be taken as a direction that population alone would be regarded. Some general words, he thought, must be added.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he saw the difficulty, but he could not pretend that he had had time to consider the matter. He had no doubt that the recollection of his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) and hon. Gentlemen opposite was more correct than his own; but he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should not press the matter to a Division, but should bring up words on the Report stage, when they could consider the best course to be adopted.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, there was another difficulty about adopting the words of the section of 1888; there existed no last Census. As regarded those wards, the Census was parish by parish, and there was no Census in which the population of these wards could be ascertained by the last Census. They could ascertain the number of houses in the ward and the number of electors, but there was no Census. He would accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade if he would make it in the altered form that he would himself put down words on the Report stage.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the words suggested would not apply to this clause, because the clause already stated— A County Council may, on application by the Parish Council, or not less than one-sixth of the parochial electors of a parish, and on being satisfied that the area or population of the parish is so large as to make a single parish meeting for the election of Councillors impracticable or inconvenient, order that a parish be divided for that purpose into wards. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would deal with population alone.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the area was not the guiding principle as to representation.

MR. STANSFELD

said, he would suggest that they leave out all reference to Census and be content with these words of the 51st section— The wards shall be arranged with a view to the population of each ward being as nearly as conveniently may be equal.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the words should be proportionate to the number of electors, because they did not always contain the same numbers.

MR. STANSFELD, continuing— Regard being had to the distribution and pursuits of such population. It seemed to him that would cover the whole ground, and give an elasticity to the division that would meet the occasion.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would accept the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), and confer with him before Report in order to see what could be done.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would alter the Amendment so that regard should be had to area.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Government to Section 9, Sub-section 3 of the Public Health Act, 1875, where the Statute said— Where a rural Union is made part of an urban district the Local Government Board may by order divide such parish into separate wards, and determine the number of Councillors to be elected by such wards respectively, in such a manner as to provide for the due representation of such part of the parish situate in the rural district. Those were better words than the limiting words suggested.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE moved to omit the words "one-sixth," in order to insert the words "one-tenth."

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 4, to leave out the words "one-sixth," and insert the words "one-tenth." —(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

Amendment agreed to.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, in moving the consequential Amendment standing in his name, his object was to make it clear that where a parish was divided into wards for the election of Guardians that in such a ward there need be no parish meeting.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 7, after the word "into," to insert the word " parish."—(Major Darwin.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, that to carry out the intentions of the words "a separate parish meeting," it would be necessary to insert "for the purpose of electing Councillors," and he, therefore, begged to propose the insertion of those words.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line. 8, after the word "meeting," to insert the words "for the purpose of electing Councillors."— (Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, it had just been pointed out to him that the Amendment was unnecessary, and, therefore, he would ask leave to withdraw it.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, before the Amendment was withdrawn he wished to ask if it was intended to confer any other power than that of electing Councillors?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not under this clause, certainly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, the Amendment he had placed on the Paper referred to a matter he mentioned when they were discussing the first clause, and it was to provide a bit of machinery to guard against a difficulty which he knew would arise. The best instance he could give was in his own district, where there was an urban district of about 12,000 inhabitants which divided the remainder of the parish into two parts, one portion containing 1,500, the other about 2,000 inhabitants, and at the nearest point there was about two miles between the two. They really ought to be two separate parishes. In carrying out this Bill they desired to make all their arrangements as perfect as they could at the first start, and he suggested that the division created by Clause 1 should be carried further, to parishes in the condition described above—namely, that they ought to be divided into separate parishes, and his Amendment provided that these separate districts should become separate parishes as was provided for in Section 1 when they were excluded from the urban part.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 8, at end to add the following sub-section:—" (4.) Provided also, that when an existing parish is about to be divided under the provisions of Section 1, Sub-section 3 of this Act, and where the portion which is within the rural sanitary district is, in the opinion of the Rural Sanitary Authority, so separated and divided by the intervening urban district as to render it inconvenient for administration as a single parish, the Rural Sanitary Authority may before the appointed day, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, divide such portion into two or more parts, and declare each part to be a separate parish in like manner as if they had been constituted separate parishes under ' The Divided Parishes Act, 1876,' and other Acts amending the same, but no such part so divided shall have a less population than 200." (Sir J. Dorington.)

Question proposed, "That the Subsection be there added."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite appreciated the object his hon. Friend Lad in view; but what the hon. Baronet was dealing with was Sub-section 3, Clause 1, which provided— The part of the parish which is within the district, and the part which is without, shall as from the appointed day become separate parishes. The County Council were empowered by the Local Government Act of 1888 to divide parishes, and it was contemplated that where parts of parishes which under the Bill became a new parish that it was improper to retain them as one parish were so situated, they were to be dealt with in another way. The County Council had power to do that under the Local Government Act. This Bill, by Clause 30, Sub-section 1, expressly required that— Every County Council shall forthwith take into consideration every such case within their county. The hon. Baronet's proposal was that when the Rural Sanitary Authority were of opinion that the parish was so separated and divided by the intervening urban district as to render it inconvenient for administration as a single parish, the Rural Sanitary Authority may before the appointed day, with the sanction of the Local Government Board, divide such portion into two or more parts. In the next place, it would require the sanction of the Local Government Board, and the granting of that sanction would involve a local inquiry, which would throw an immense amount of labour upon the Local Government Board, and cause considerable delay. The matter had been most carefully considered by the authorities, and they advised him it would not simplify and accelerate matters if the hon. Baronet's Amendment were accepted, but would, on the contrary, create both delay and confusion. They further thought that the work would be more rapidly done by the County Council under Clause 30 of the Bill, and he therefore hoped the hon. Baronet would not press the Amendment.

MR. W. LONG

said, his hon. Friend who moved this Amendment was Chairman of a County Council which had been called upon, since the Act of 1888, to administer that Act, and had done so with signal success, and he ventured to say this Amendment dealt with what had been found a practical difficulty under the Act of 1888. No one could explain so well as his hon. Friend could what were the difficulties that had arisen, and it was proposed by the Amendment to meet one of those difficulties. It seemed to him the main objection of the President of the Local Government Board was that the Rural Sanitary Authority was called upon to act in a certain manner by the Amendment. He did not know what the views of the Government might be as to "the appointed day," or when, after the Debate that took place earlier, they anticipated this Bill would come into effect; but when they found it their duty to consider Amendments they believed "the appointed day" would be the day indicated by the President of the Local Government Board a short time ago, and now it was open to conjecture what would be "the appointed day." This disaster, if it be a disaster, or this delay, he thought, afforded a new opportunity for considering some of these practical difficulties. He hoped the Committee would not regard the Rural Sanitary Authority as one that could not be trusted. He had great respect for the Local Government Board and the officials connected with it; but having had the advantage of being at the Board for some years, he knew perfectly well that what appeared to be simple and easy to the Department was found to be difficult in the locality when it was called upon to administer the powers conferred by Parliament. If the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to accept the Amendment as it stood he hoped he would make some provision which would enable these practical difficulties, which might arise, to be dealt with.

SIR J. DORINGTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that this method would be a very slow one, but if the right hon. Gentleman would point to anything more rapid he would assent to it. He objected to two separate and totally dissimilar parishes, which had nothing in common, being placed under the same Parish Council. The provisions in the Act of 1888 as regarded the formation of parishes were extremely good, but necessarily long, although not too long, when they purposed to deal with conflicting interests; but in this case there would be no conflicting interests. If the County Council were to be the power to act in this matter under the Act of 1888 it would take a long time—many months—before they could deal with it and dispose of it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he sympathised with the case which had been presented by the hon. Baronet, but he could not admit that the County Councils ought to take so much time, and he did not think that they would. He did not, however, wish to reject the suggestion at once. Clause 30 was the proper place for bringing it up, and perhaps at that point some machinery could be devised which would achieve the object of the hon. Baronet, without impairing the efficiency of the County Council. He thought the best course would be to expedite the action of the County Council instead of setting up another authority which could not unite parishes or deal with urban parishes.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, there was an inconvenience in the present arrangement which would be remedied by his hon. Friend's Amendment. His point dealt with two portions of the same parish cut in two by an intervening Urban Authority which belonged to the old civil parish. Under the Bill as it stood they would create a Parish Council in each of these portions, and the object of the Amendment was to prevent that being necessary, and to enable the matter to be dealt with by a quick and easy process. They created one Parish Council for these two parishes, and the object of the Amendment was to place them both in the position of an independent authority. The Government proposed to place two portions of one parish which were absolutely separate under the same Parochial Council. Surely that was a roundabout way of creating a Parochial Council. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, which, among other advantages, would enable an operation which now took almost a year to carry out to be carried out in a fortnight or a month.

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

said, that the hon. Baronet proposed that where an existing rural parish was about to be divided in consequence of a portion which was urban cutting it in two, that measures should be taken to constitute them as separate parishes. But the general idea was not to multiply but to unite small parishes and make them larger, and he wanted to know why the hon. Baronet excluded from his Amendment the faculty of uniting these parts with some other parish or part of a parish. Under existing conditions they could not only be divided into several parishes, but they might be united. Each of them might be united with some other parish by the County Council. The real question seemed to him to be, as the President of the Local Government Board had stated, whether it was not advisable and possible to expedite and facilitate the process by which the County Council could effect that operation. He would suggest that practically the best course would be to accept the view of his right hon. Friend and leave him to settle the matter.

MR. W. LONG

said, the right hon. Gentleman had entirely mistaken the spirit of his hon. Friend's Amendment. It' the right hon. Member for Halifax had rightly interpreted the intentions of the Government, and his reply was in conformity to their wishes, then they would have introduced a new matter, which would lead to considerable discussion. They had already dealt with the proposal that small parishes should be grouped, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were as determined as they were on that side of the House that there should be no grouping of parishes. The proposal of his hon. Friend was not that small detached parts of parishes which had no, so to speak, location in their own civil parish, and which, therefore, could properly be joined to other parishes, which the clauses in the Act of 1888 proposed to deal with, but that places which were themselves capable of administering their own affairs and large enough should be entitled to do so, and that they should be entitled to become separate parishes instead of being forced to be called upon to elect one Parish Council. The Member for Halifax said if they adopted the Amendment they would be going back upon the proposal already made, and that, instead of facilitating local government, they would be increasing the local government areas. He quite agreed that they did not want to increase the areas of local government of an urban character. But they had decided that the population for which a Parish Council should be compulsory should be reduced from 300 to 200. Surely the right hon. Gentleman was not going now to suggest — and he hoped the Government were not going to entertain the suggestion—that having decided they would not force a Parish Council upon places unless they had a population of more than 200, that they should force upon existing areas a union with some other parish, which would be the last thing they would desire. What was the reason which led to the new proposal of the Government? It was because these parishes had an individuality of their own and a separate existence, and did not want to be merged into one another. The proposal of the Member for Halifax was even worse. It was not that two adjoining places should be joined to one Parish Council, but that part of a parish should be taken from that parish and joined to another. He ventured to say that if that proposal was to be accepted it would not only throw an entirely new light on this Bill, but would produce an enormous amount of food for fresh discussion, and land the Bill into greater difficulty than it was in at present. He hoped the views of the hon. Member for Halifax would find no response from the Government.

MR. STANSFELD

was surprised at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who ought to have known him better. He had no object in this matter that was not, so far as he could judge, a reasonable object. He did not want at all to say that where there was an individuality the parish should not be continued. He approved of that principle, but what he asked was, why make it impossible, if the circumstances required it, that these parishes should be united with others? Here was a parish divided by an urban district, but each of these parts was not an individual parish in its history or traditions, and it was not at all a thing which might not be questioned to imagine and suppose that each of these divided parts wished to be a separate parish in itself. He thought hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House trusted the County Council. Why should they not trust the County Council to consider this question, and if there was sufficient reason for taking into account the wish of the inhabitants of the divided parts, to give the County Council the opportunity and the power to unite them to other neighbouring parishes, or, if they liked, to constitute themselves parishes by themselves. He was in favour of elasticity, and of giving the County Councils power of dealing with these questions, more from a practical point of view, without laying down absolute rules.

SIR R. PAGET

thought his hon. Friend had made out a case which required to be dealt with. He desired to make this suggestion. The first clause of this Bill, Sub-section 3, practically gave rise to his hon. Friend's Amendment. That clause was a compulsory clause, and divided a parish under certain circumstances into two parishes. He would, therefore suggest that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment now and bring it up on Report by way of an Amendment to Clause 1, Subsection 3, which related to this matter.

MR. A. H. SMITH (Christchurch)

put a case where in the rural part of an old parish very large suburbs had sprung up, containing something like 4,000 or 5,000 people. Under the Bill as it stood this large suburb and the small rural parish containing about 300 people would have one Parish Council in common, and the small rural parish would be entirely swamped by this large new suburb which had sprung up. He thought, therefore, it was most desirable that some cheap and easy way should be found of creating this large suburb, and other similar places, into a new parish for the purposes of this Act and of allowing the small parish to have its own Parish Council. They had absolutely no interest in common, and he hoped that if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the exact terms of the present Amendment he would accept one which went at any rate in the same direction.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

suggested that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment with a view to the matter being dealt with in Clause 30.

SIR J. DORINGTON

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not think there was any provision in the Bill under which an ecclesiastical parish would be constituted a separate parish in a separate district. He proposed, therefore, to amend the clause by adding at the end the following words:— And that the County Council shall have power, on the application of such parochial electors, to constitute a separate parish for the purposes of this Bill of any ecclesiastical parish. There was in the neighbourhood where he lived a village which belonged to three separate parishes. But their ecclesiastical parish had got a separate social life, if he might say so. The result of the situation, if no Amendment were made, would be that their parochial life would be entirely broken up, and they should be divided among three other parishes with which they had really no connection at all. They were really a separate parish, and he would ask his right hon. Friend whether he could not accept some such Amendment as this. If not, very great hardship would be caused in many parts of the country. Their ecclesiastical parish numbered about 700 persons; it was larger than many parishes which were civil parishes, and which would be allowed their own government, and what he should be disposed to claim as the only equitable solution of the difficulty was, that they should be allowed to continue their parish life and have their Parish Council, and be constituted as other parishes with all necessary formalities.

Amendment proposed, To add, at the end of the clause, the following words:—"And that the County Council shall have power, on the application of such parochial-electors, to constitute a separate parish for the purposes of this Bill of any ecclesiastical parish" —(Mr. Goschen.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the case which the right hon. Gentleman had put was really a case which ought to be considered. The Amendment was not on the Paper, and, of course, he could not speak with that certainty which he would otherwise have done had it been in print; but at present he was under the impression that Clause 30 dealt with the question. Clause 30 dealt with the whole of these questions, but the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Dorington) put his clause down at this stage, and out of respect to him he (Mr. Fowler) dealt with it, and they had had this Debate, which really was not germane to this clause, but to Clause 30. If the right hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment now, but on Clause 30, he would take care that the case was investigated before they reached the clause, and see whether it was really met by the clause. If not, the Government would consider it.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he had a case in his own constituency, and he placed an Amendment on the Paper, but he had taken it off again on carefully considering the existing law, which, he thought, was sufficient to meet it. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would carefully consider the question before they came to Clause 30.

MR. PAULTON (Durham, Bishops Auckland)

said, there was a case in the district in which he lived which was precisely parallel to the case which the right hon. Member for St. George's had produced, and he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would favourably consider an Amendment in the direction suggested. The matter was one of considerable importance.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that this matter had been mentioned to him by the hon. Member for Petersfield in connection with an important parish of Hampshire. His own impression was that it would not be safe to leave this matter to the existing law.

MR. W. LONG

said, this was rather a question of interpretation, and of the meaning in the Bill of the word "parish." Clause 30 did deal with every conceivable difficulty which might arise in a rural parish. But an ecclesiastical was not a rural parish, and that was where the whole difficulty arose. In many cases the civil parish was now the smaller part, and two ecclesiastical parishes had grown out of it; they were the larger part, and had all the ecclesiastical arrangements. He did not think that Clause 30 met the case, nor that the existing law was sufficient for the purpose. He hoped the Government would assist them in arriving at a conclusion before they came to Clause 30.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he would for the present withdraw the Amendment. He gathered that the right hon. Gentleman and other Members were entirely favourable to measures being taken to carry out the object aimed at by the Amendment.

SIR C. W. DILKE

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not confine it to ecclesiastical parishes, because it frequently arises with hamlets.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

intimated that the matter should receive careful consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Clause 18 (Temporary provisions as to small parishes).

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 12, line 9, to leave out the words "which has a population less than 300," and insert the words "not having a separate Parish Council.

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

MR. W. LONG

said, he did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman had proposed; quite the contrary. The Amendment was in conformity with the views entertained on both sides of the House, and fully in accordance with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). He (Mr. Long) intruded upon the Committee for the purpose of calling attention to the way in which the clause stood. At the earlier stages of their Debates charges were thrown across the Table at the Opposition with regard to Amendments. Anyone who looked at this clause as it originally stood and as now brought up would find that of the original proposals of the Government, covering 14 or 15 lines, the only words that remained were:— In a rural parish … the following provisions shall, as from the appointed day. This was one of the most important clauses in the Bill, dealing with the parishes which were below the population of 200, and where there was to be no Parish Council. The change that had been made by the Government was a sufficient commentary on the treatment to which the Bill was subjected by the Government themselves. It had been suggested that they on the Opposition side had brought in Amendments which were unworthy of consideration; but here they had the Government bringing up what was a new clause in the room of that originally proposed. He thought he was entitled to call attention to the fact that the Opposition had been placed in a position of considerable difficulty by this action of the Government. They had not merely to consider clause 18 as it stood formerly and their own proposals with regard to it, but they had to wipe out from their memories the clause as it formerly stood, to take up an absolutely new clause and consider it, and prepare Amendments to it. He ventured to say that it was most unfair, under these circumstances, that the charge he had referred to should be made across the Table. The action of the Government revolutionised the Bill. The present Amendment was one upon which the others were consequential, and he really thought the right hon. Gentleman, in moving it, would have made some explanation. The clause was completely charged—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not at all.

MR. W. LONG

said, there were several other Amendments on the Paper, and these, he supposed, they were expected to ignore.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. W. LONG

said, perhaps his phrase was at fault; but the Amendment on the Paper was part of the Government's new proposal—the present Amendment—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is not.

MR. W. LONG

asked were they, then, to understand that the Amendment was not part of the new proposals, and that it was moved for some reason which they were subsequently to learn? He was under the impression, and so were many of his friends on the Opposition Benches, that this Amendment was part of the reconstruction of Clause 18, and that they could discuss the question at this point; but, if the right hon. Gentleman preferred, he was ready to discuss the Amendments as they came up.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Gentleman was slightly incorrect. This was not a new Amendment. It merely dealt with a provision already in the Bill. The Committee had seen fit to alter the limit as to population; and they were simply dealing with those parishes which were not to have a Parish Council. He (Mr. Fowler) did not think the time had come for him to make any statement; but as the hon. Gentleman had thought it right to say that the only words remaining of the original clause were— In a rural parish … shall, as from the appointed day "—

MR. W. LONG

Nothing of the kind.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he understood the hon. Gentleman to complain that only four or five words remained. He challenged him directly on that point, and said that every word and line of Clause 18 would be found as before, except those dealt with in this Amendment.

MR. W. LONG

said, he proposed to deal with the comment which had just been passed by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had challenged him—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order! I think it would be better I should put the Amendment before going into discussion on the whole question.

MR. W. LONG rose to Order. He wished to be perfectly clear; and he would ask whether it would be compe- tent for him to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the subsequent Amendments if the first were passed?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That must depend upon the way in which the hon. Gentleman looks upon those remarks.

MR. W. LONG

said, he made a certain statement regarding this Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman had accused him of making a false statement.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No, no.

MR. W. LONG

said, he did not mean to use the word "false" offensively; the right hon. Gentleman had accused him of making a misstatement.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. W. LONG

said, well, perhaps, he should call it an incorrect statement. He did not mean anything offensive—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I do not think it is worth while pursuing this matter further. The question is very simple, and I find that the words are exactly the same as in the clause before. I will put the Question, and if there is anything to discuss it can be raised subsequently.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR R. PAGET

Are we discussing the Amendments together, Sir, or separately?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The practice is that the Minister in charge of the Bill should make a statement at this stage of the general plan of the clause, and it would be convenient, I think, if the right hon. Gentleman were to do that now.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would do so. He begged to move— In page 12, line 10, to leave out from the word "day" to the end of the Clause, and to insert "but subject to provisions made by a grouping order, if the parish is grouped with some other parish or parishes, have effect:—(1) The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be either in March or in April, and at the annual assembly the parish meeting shall choose a chairman for the year. (2) The parish meeting shall assemble not less than four times in each year. (3) The parish meeting may appoint a committee of their own number, and delegate to that committee any powers and duties of the parish meeting other than any power of raising money, and all the acts of the committee shall be submitted to the parish meeting for their approval. (4) All powers exercisable by the Vestry shall, except so far as they relate to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, or are transferred by this Act to any other authority, be exercisable by the parish meeting. (5) The power and the duty of appointing the Overseers, and the power of appointing and revoking the appointment of an Assistant Overseer, and the power given by this Act to a Parish Council of appointing trustees of a charity in the place of Overseers or Churchwardens, shall vest in the parish meet-ting. (6) The provisions of this Act with respect to the stopping or diversion of a public right of way, or the declaring of a highway to be unnecessary and not repairable at the public expense, and with respect to a complaint to a County Council of a default by the District Council, shall apply, with the substitution of the parish meeting for the Parish Council. (7) On the application of the parish meeting the County Council may confer on that meeting any of the additional powers conferred on a Parish Council by this Act. (8) Any Act of the parish meeting may be signified by an instrument executed at the meeting under the hands, or, if an instrument under seal is required, under the hands and seals of the chairman presiding at the meeting and two other parochial electors present at the meeting. He merely wanted to explain how the clause came to require amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) suggested a new scheme incorporating and expanding the provisions of Clause 18 in relation to the question of grouping and the small parishes generally. He made no complaint of that; it was, in his opinion, an improvement to the Bill, and that improvement had been made under the guidance of his right hon. Friend to whom he gave all the credit. The clause as it was now proposed to amend it would embody his right hon. Friend's scheme, founded as it was upon his long experience and ripe judgment, and he hoped it would give these parishes a simple and inexpensive mode of self-government. He did not see the necessity for his saying anything further. If his right hon. Friend wished to make any further suggestion, he was sure the Committee would be glad to listen to him, and for his part he should be prepared to consider any additional view he might wish to place before them.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 10, to leave out from the word "day" to the end of the Clause, and add the words "but subject to provisions made by a grouping order, if the parish is grouped with some other parish or parishes, have effect:— (1) The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be either in March or in April, and at the annual assembly the parish meeting shall choose a chairman for the year."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not know whether that was the proper time to raise the question, but he would like to ascertain the precise meaning of the first words of the Amendment— But subject to provisions made by a grouping order, if the parish is grouped with some other parish or parishes. If the words had any meaning at all, they interfered with the provision in the first clause as to parish meetings. In order to have the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he desired to move the omission of those words.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I understand that several hon. Members wish to discuss the general principle of this new clause, and if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman is moved now it will shut out such general discussion.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

Very well, Sir.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Members can now discuss the general principle.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said, he wished to raise an alternative scheme to that of the right hon. Gentleman; and he thought it might be desirable if he were to raise it as an Amendment to Clause 2 of the Amendment.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I have just explained that, in accordance with the desire of some hon. Members, the question may now be discussed generally. I think the hon. and learned Member would do well to postpone his Amendment until the real discussion has taken place.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, that was the matter he desired to discuss—the matter of the general principle. The question he was referring to might have been discussed on the Amendment which he had put down; but, on a point of Order, he would ask whether he could not discuss the alternative now on the general principle?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I have asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to discuss the Bill in that way.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, he was in doubt whether he was at liberty to enter upon the discussion of this scheme now or at a later stage. He misunderstood the ruling of the Deputy Chairman. He had given notice of the alternative scheme, which was for the purpose of incorporating small parishes and giving them the functions of a Parish Council. There were between 4,000 and 5,000 parishes where the population was less than 200, and where the present machinery of local government would be practically unaltered under the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. The original plan of the Government was in a sense complete, and would have covered the country with a network of Parish Councils; but this was an incomplete scheme, because some 5,000 parishes would hardly be touched. In his opinion the best course to take would be to give to the parishioners in these parishes, not mean, paltry, mutilated powers, but the same powers as in larger areas would be given to the Parish Councils. If the parish should grow and the parish meeting become an unwieldy body for transacting business, a Parish Council could be established on an order of the County Council. The business of the parish would then be carried on without any break. He would not go into details; but, in regard to the general principle, he thought it would be seen that his proposal was one that was deserving of consideration.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I think it would be more convenient if I put the question now as it stands.

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

MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)

observed the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken proposed to confer identical powers on every parish, large or small, but he had overlooked the fact that a great many of the powers conferred by the Bill upon Parish Councils could not be fittingly given to very small parishes. There were a great many of these powers that were not suited and that it would not be wise to confer upon these parishes. There was all the difference in the world between a parish of 5,000 inhabitants and a parish of 50 inhabitants. For his own part, he wished the population limit was higher. The right hon. Gentleman was practically correct in what he had said; and he thought the clause had been received with favour on both sides of the House. There were no additional powers conferred upon the Parish Council by this clause. It appeared to him that the Amendment -would arise naturally and fittingly on that sub-section. Going back to the general scheme of the right hon. Gentle- man, he wished distinctly to acknowledge the great readiness which the right hon. Gentleman had invariably shown to accept suggestions and Amendments from whatever quarter of the House they came. The right hon. Gentleman had accepted the Amendments he (Mr. Stansfeld) had proposed, and had amplified them in a way that met with his entire concurrence. The Deputy Chairman had said that upon this first Motion the Committee might enter upon a general view of the whole scheme; but, so far as he was concerned, he had propounded the few notions he had on the subject, and he did not think it would he wise or right to take up further time until they came, subsection by sub-section, to settle the scheme. He would content himself, therefore, with saying that the right hon. Gentleman had accepted in a liberal and generous spirit the Amendments he (Mr. Stansfeld) had put down, and had added proposals of his own more or less consequential, which were no doubt improvements. He had not a very strong objection to the view of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but, looking at the question from a practical point of view, he thought they should not confer on small communities powers which they were not fit to exercise, and which they probably would not want to exercise; and that it would be better to give the County Councils power to confer these rights and privileges when occasion called for it.

MR. W. LONG

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax. He might say that he did not propose to re-open the controversy on the clause as it originally stood. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in what he had said in support, generally, of the new proposals of the Government, and in his general agreement with the alternative proposal on the Paper. But he thought many on that (the Opposition) side of the House would like to go a little further even than the right hon. Gentleman, and would have entirely agreed with the proposals of the Government if the limit had been fixed at a higher figure. The proposals in this direction which they pressed on the Government during the earlier stages of the Committee, and which found support from the right hon. Gentleman himself, had been dealt with by the House, and they could not go back on them. On the other hand, he confessed that he shared the opinion that a parish meeting was quite competent as a Parish Council to decide this question. The difficulty they were under was not one as between the parish meeting and the Parish Council. A small difficulty—though he thought it would be found greater than hon. Gentlemen realised—arose here in a conflict between the names of the different authorities. They were dealing now with the parish meeting, which was in itself an administrative authority—or rather would become an administrative authority when the Bill passed, for it would be called on to govern the parish in certain cases. It would be at the same time the appellate authority from the Parish Council—the authority which would keep the Parish Council in existence. He could not help thinking that confusion would arise from the existence of the same name for the parish meeting in a parish where the population was below 200, for that would be a parish meeting plus the administrative authority, and the parish meeting in a parish where the population was above 200, which would be an assembly of householders competent to elect representatives to form a Parish Council. He could not help thinking that it would be well if they had a different name for the body which was to administer the parish affairs from that of the body which was to act as a Court of Appeal as against the Parish Council. Although he had called this a small matter, hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who were conversant with the small affairs of country districts would know how desirable it was that in any enactment they passed they should be as simple and clear and distinct as they could. Confusion would arise when it was least expected, and they would not have that kind of advice ready at hand for these Councils that they had for existing authorities, whether Local Boards or Municipal Corporations or County Councils. It was, therefore, desirable that the language of the Act should be as plain as possible. He would trust the parish meeting just as much as he would trust the Parish Council. It was impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule as ,to what powers were desirable for one parish and another. They all knew instances where parishes would be under the 200 limit, and therefore would have to have a parish meeting, and he knew that the local circumstances and requirements of each parish would make it desirable that it should have the additional powers. He admitted that the President of the Local Government Board had to a large extent met the difficulty by giving power to the County Council to confer powers upon the administrative parish meeting. He was inclined to think that it would have been better to have avoided the distinction at once; but if the Government and the House decided that it was desirable to make a distinction between the Parish Council and the administrative parish meeting in the matter of powers, the Government had made the best proposal they could in Sub-section 7. He thought that was a fair way of dealing with the difficulty. The County Councils might be trusted to extend these powers if they thought it to be desirable. He was glad the County Councils had been selected, and not any Government Department. He had frequently had to speak in support of the Local Government Board being selected in place of the County Council, but this was a matter to deal with which the County Councils were better qualified than the Local Government Board. If it were desirable to make a distinction between the Parish Council and the administrative parish meeting, he thought the Government had made the best proposal they could to meet the difficulty; and subject to certain considerations and Amendments which might eventually be proposed, he should support the Amendment as it now stood as being as satisfactory and workable as it could be.

SIR E. PAGET

said, the object in view was to provide the best system of parochial administration for 5,000 or 6,000 of the smaller parishes of the Kingdom. It was, he believed, the view of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that the same privileges and arrangements should be extended to parishes whether great or small, and this was one of the points on which the hon. Member was of opinion that Amendment was required. In the scheme of the Government there was no distinction between the parishes. A parish of 199 people was "small" and a parish of 201 people was great, in the sense that it would have a Parish Council whilst the other would only have a parish meeting. He had referred to Clauses 5 and 6—which set out all the powers to be transferred to the Parish Council—with Clause 18 and did not find anything like a set principle in them. For instance, all the powers of the Vestries were transferred to the Parish Councils and were originally transferred to the parish meetings. But the powers of the Churchwardens and Overseers were not transferred, nor were the valuation, the poor rate, the assessment of the county rate, the parochial and vestry rooms, and parish offices. Furthermore, there was no provision made for the incorporation of the parish meeting so as to enable it to hold property. The County Council might confer the additional powers on the meetings—the power of dealing with buildings and recreation grounds, and of providing water and making sanitary arrangements, and of accepting and holding real and personal property. But there was no provision made for incorporation so as to enable it to hold property legally. He pointed that out as a difficulty which would have to be met. Then, on the general ground, they had to consider whether the parish meeting should be entrusted with the powers which were to be transferred to the Parish Councils. Why should they not? To his mind it was impossible to draw a distinction. It would conduce to simplicity to invest the parish meeting with the same amount of authority as the Parish Council. If the Government did not do this they would have to defend their scheme in every case where power was given to the parish meeting and withheld from the parish meeting except with the intervention of the County Council. They would have to give reasons why the allotments question was handed over to one body and not to the other; they would have to say why one body was entrusted with the valuation list and not the other, and many inconsistencies of the same kind which would not be understanded of the people would require to be explained. He did not desire to adversely criticise the Government scheme, but wished to aid the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board in making it acceptable. It would tend to the easy understanding of a difficult clause if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way so to simplify it that everything that was given to the Parish Council would be transferred to the parish meeting.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, To leave out the words, "but subject to provisions made by a grouping order, if the parish is grouped with some other parish or parishes.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Baronet evidently assumed that these words formed part of the original scheme, but that was not the case. They were put in as part of the new Amendment, to provide for cases of future grouping. Under Clause 3 parishes by their own consent could be grouped, and under the grouping order the grouped Parish Council would have certain powers. Each parish of a grouped Council could not have these powers separately as well as under the grouped Council; therefore, it was necessary to put these powers in the clause.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, that if he rightly understood what the right hon. Gentleman proposed it would be most objectionable. They were proposing in this clause to lay down what were to be the powers of the parish meeting, and that should apply whether the parish was grouped with other parishes for the purpose of the election of Parish Councillors or not. The object of the Committee in insisting in the first clause of the Bill that every parish, however small, should have a separate parish meeting, was that the separate parish interests of these parishes should be dealt with by the parish meetings, and that only matters that were necessarily common to the parishes when grouped should be dealt with by the Parish Councils. Now, all these powers which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to confer on the parish meetings by this clause were powers which he should contend ought to be exercised by every parish, whether grouped for the election of Councillors or not. He did not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should deprive the parish meetings of these powers. The first two sub-sections of the Amendment really related to parish meetings and had nothing to do with the Councils. The third related solely to parish meetings. The fourth related solely to parish meetings. It certainly ought to. If the powers were confined the Councils of several grouped parishes the Councillors of a small parish might be outvoted by the Councillors of a larger parish. The greatest injury might, in this way, be inflicted on a small parish. The fifth sub-section dealt with the power of appointing Overseers and Trustees in place of Churchwardens. Surely those powers ought to be vested in the parish meeting and not in the Parish Council. A Council of grouped parishes would have no right to interfere with the charities of a small parish. The sixth sub-section related to the stopping or diversion of a public right of way or the declaration of a highway to be unnecessary and not repairable at the public expense. Those, again, were matters for a small parish to deal with rather than a Parish Council of grouped parishes. The seventh and eighth sub-sections only related to the parish meetings. After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he must ask him to strictly define what were among the powers he thought the Parish Council in the case of grouped parishes ought to exercise, and not the separate meetings of the small parishes. To his (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) mind, the whole clause as it stood was intended to retain the separate identity of small parishes.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would put a concrete case. Parish A had a Parish Council and a parish meeting. Certain duties devolved on the parish meeting, and certain powers. Certain duties and larger powers devolved on the Parish Council. B and C had parish meetings. If they chose, they could be left alone, and have separate parish meetings. But suppose B and C said—"We do not want that; we prefer to be grouped—to make, for the purposes of this Act, one parish with one Parish Council." Then that Parish Council would have for the two parishes the same power that the Parish Council would have for parish A. B and C would be relegated back again to the position of parish meetings for purposes other than those covered by the Parish Council. As the hon. Member for Liverpool had pointed out, there would be two descriptions of parishes—one with the ordinary parish meeting and the other with the administrative parish meeting. If a parish chose to surrender it individual power of administration, and to be grouped with another parish, so be it.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

thought that small parishes were entitled to govern themselves in spite of grouping orders.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.