Commons Sitting of 15 December 1893

MR. SPAKER'S INDISPOSITION..
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' UNION.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to statements recently made at public meetings in the Eastern Counties, with reference to the National Agricultural Labourers' Union, to the effect that payments from the sick benefit funds had been suspended, and that labourers who had subscribed had been in consequence forced to apply for parish relief; and whether he would appoint a Select Committee to investigate the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby): The hon. Member will find that the same question was asked of my predecessor on February 23, 1891. I am informed that the circumstances are the same, and I have nothing to add to the answer given on that occasion.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAE.
  MR. J. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that Clause 1 of the Decree issued on 1st August, 1890, by the Sultan of Zanzibar confirms all Decrees and Ordinances made by his predecessors against Slavery and the Slave Trade, which includes the Treaty between Great Britain and Zanzibar of 5th June, 1873; and whether all slaves introduced into Zanzi-
  1486
  bar or Pemba since that date have been so brought in contravention of that Treaty, and are now illegally held in bondage; whether the proclamation of the Sultan of Zanzibar abolishing slavery in Kismayu and Benadir, in January, 1876, comprises the territory lately handed back to the Sultan of Zanzibar; whether the slaves now employed in coaling Her Majesty's ships of war in Zanzibar were all introduced into that island prior to 1873; and, if not, on what grounds they are now recognised as slaves; whether any means are taken by the Zanzibar Government to ensure that the money paid to slaves for coaling Her Majesty's ships is not paid over to their masters, either directly or indirectly; and whether, as the finances of the Zanzibar Protectorate are under the control of Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General, he will state whether any portion of the Revenue is derived from slave labour?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick)The Treaty of June 5, 1873, is in force, and its effect is correctly stated. The Proclamation of 1876 affects Kismayu, which is still held by the East Africa Company, and the Benadir Ports now administered by Italy. The coaling of Her Majesty's ships is done by a British firm under contract; the commanders of the vessels have nothing to do with the service, but the firm makes no distinction whatever as to the payment of different classes of labourers. It would manifestly be impossible for it to undertake to examine the previous history of any slaves who present themselves for employment. The sources of the Zanzibar revenues are defined under Treaties, and the Berlin and Brussels Acts, all of which, as well as the Revenue Returns, have been laid before Parliament. If my hon. Friend will refer to these, I shall be glad to give him any further explanation that is in my power; but I must point out that to exempt from duty any produce which is the result of slave labour would be to place a high premium upon the employment of slaves.

  SMALL-POX AT HAY.
  MR. G. ALLSOPP: I beg to ask the President of the Local

  1487
  Government Board whether, in July last, the Local Government Board received a complaint from the Worcester Corporation that a patient, who had been taken ill with small-pox at Hay, was, on the 24th May, 1893, discharged by the Hay authorities and taken by one of their officials to the railway station at Whitney, some four miles from Hay Railway Station (because the officials at the Hay Railway Station had refused to issue a ticket for him) and his railway fare paid to Worcester; and that two days after his arrival in Worcester the patient was taken to a doctor, and also to the Worcester Medical Officer of Health, and found to be still in an infectious state, and was removed to the Worcester Isolation Hospital; and will he explain why the Local Government Board declined to institute an inquiry into this case or to express any opinion as to it; and what steps the Local Government Board have taken to test the accuracy of the facts laid before them by the Worcester Corporation?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER, Derby, Ilkeston): On July 191nst the Health Committee of the Worcester Corporation forwarded to the Local Government Board a copy of correspondence with the Hay Local Board and their Medical Officer of Health, from which it appeared that a patient suffering from small-pox, who had been under treatment by that Medical Officer of Health from April 14 to May 19, was pronounced by him on the latter date to be no longer capable of conveying infection; and that the man did not leave until five days afterwards, when he was furnished with a completely fresh outfit, his own clothes having been destroyed. He arrived at Worcester and remained in a common lodging-house from the 24th till the 26th of May, when he was seen by the Worcester Medical Officer of Health, who considered him to be still in an infections condition, and had him removed to the infectious hospital, where he remained until July 13. There is no allegation of his having in fact spread small-pox in the common lodging-house. The question in dispute, between the medical man who, had treated the case and other medical men who had subsequently seen it, was as to its infectiousness at a particular stage of convalescence, and this question
  1488
  was not one which could have been conclusively determined by any inquiry by the Board at the time the case was brought under their attention, and the Board did not consider that they were in a position to express any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the different contentions respecting the case.

  FLOGGING IN SCOTCH PRISONS.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the fact that no flogging of adults, either now or for many years past, takes place in prisons in Scotland; and whether it is an understanding or stipulation on the appointment of a warder in Scotland that he shall not be compelled to flog?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): No flogging of adult ordinary prisoners in Scotland takes place, or has taken place, for many years past, but convicts at public works are flogged for grave offences. No understanding or stipulation is made on the appointment of a warder in Scotland that he shall not be compelled to flog.

  FLOGGING IN ENGLISH PRISONS.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the large amount of flogging ordered by sentence at the recent Assizes for Liverpool; whether this duty will be or has been performed by the warders of one gaol only, Her Majesty's Prison at Walton; and whether any extra remuneration is given for this duty, or any regard paid to the objection any warder may feel to perform it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL, Hackney, S.): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, being engaged elsewhere, has asked me to answer this question. It appears, he said, that 12 sentences of flogging were pronounced, of which only one has yet been executed. The punishment will be inflicted by the warder of the prison in which the; prisoners are confined. This will be the Walton Prison. Special remuneration is given for this duty, and there has never been any difficulty in finding officers willing to perform it.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN WATER-FORD COUNTY.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, in the rural sanitary district of Kilmacthomas, County Waterford, 183 labourers' cottages have been erected, whilst in the contiguous larger and more highly valued district of Dungarvan but 47 have been erected; and could he state what was the nature of the Report upon which Mr. Staunton, the Local Government Board Inspector, lately allowed but 26 out of a scheme for 55 in the Dungarvan district, seeing that many of the cottages at present occupied by labourers therein are said to be in an insanitary condition?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.) (for Mr. J. MORLEY): According to the latest Returns furnished to the Local Government Board, the number of cottages actually built in the Dungarvan Union is 46, and in that of Kilmacthomas 182. The Board's Inspector held an inquiry in July last regarding a proposal to provide 55 additional cottages in the Dungarvan Union, but of these he could only recommend 26. The Inspector reported that the manner in which the sites were selected in many cases did not appear to have been judicious; that in four instances the labourers themselves objected to the sites chosen, and declined to go there; that cottages were also proposed for evicted tenants on their late farms now occupied by others; that in the town of Dungarvan there were several houses vacant of the type usually occupied by labourers; and that it appeared that the 26 additional cottages recommended by him ought to provide fairly for all genuine wants. The Inspector's Report was communicated to the Guardians, who have so far made no observations in the matter.

  PRISON STAFF.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether certain Chief Warders in charge of prisons have been asked to perform the additional duties of clerks in charge of accounts; and, if so, how it is proposed to dispose of the services of the clerks
  1490
  who will become redundant upon the transfer of their duties?
  SIR C. RUSSELL: This has only been done in the case of one prison at Brecon, where there has never been a clerk, so that no clerks will become redundant in consequence.

  IRISH EDUCATION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to introduce any Bill amending the Education Act of 1892 before the 31st instant; and if any decision has been arrived at as to the question involved in the schools of the Christian Brothers and the Church, Education Society?
  MR. SEXTON: I wish, with reference to the second paragraph of the question and the intimation given, by the Chief Secretary last month that he expected to announce the decision before the rising of the House at Christmas, to ask if the question has reached a stage at which an announcement is probable?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The Education Act of 1892 appears to have been defective in defining the source from which Local Authorities in some cases are to raise funds for the purposes of the Act. The Government have prepared a short Bill on the subject, and are anxious to introduce and' pass it without delay, but this can only be done, of course, if it is treated as non-contentious. The subject-matter of the second paragraph of the question is still under the very careful consideration of the Irish Government. I do not think the time has arrived when we can make a statement, or even indicate when one is likely to be made.

  IRISH LAND LEGISLATION.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in drawing the Reference under which the Land Committee of next Session will sit and inquire into the working of the Rent-fixing Clauses of the Acts of 1881,1887, and 1891, he will consider the necessity of including in the Reference the Act of 1870, several important legal decisions having imported into the Act of 1881 the principles of the earlier Statute?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): My right hon. Friend believes that it is true that the principles of the Act of 1870 have been taken in some particulars as guides in interpreting the Statutes of 1881 and 1887, and the Redemption of Rent Act of 1891; and if, on further examination, it proves to be so, then the Reference would extend to the Act of 1870.

  CO-OPTED CHARITY TRUSTEES.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether the Commissioners propose in future to provide by their new schemes for charities (other than those under the Endowed Schools Act) that, as a rule, a certain number of the trustees should be co-opted; in how many of such schemes, settled or published by them within the last six mouths, the majority of trustees will, apart from any change that may be effected by any future legislation, ultimately be persons selected by a popular vote, and in how many so settled or published within the last six months the scheme has provided for co-optation of some of the future trustees, and in how many for the election of some of them by a popular vote; and how many such schemes have been so settled or published during that period?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS, Merionethshire): The number of schemes established by the Charity Commissioners under the Charitable Trusts Acts during the six months ending October 31st, 1893, was 134. Of these, 40 did not provide for the permanent constitution of a body of trustees, being either partial or amending schemes, or directed to some limited purpose. A further number of 49 of these schemes dealt with denominational charities, and two with general or non-local charities, to neither of which class of eases is the principle of popular representation considered to be applicable. Of the remaining 43 schemes, one provides only partially for the permanent constitution of the trustees. There remain 42 schemes which provide for the permanent constitution of the trustees, in all of which provision is made for the election of trustees representatively, whether by direct popular
  1492
  vote or otherwise. In 16 of these schemes the representative element is in a majority, in 22 in a minority, and four on an equality. Of these 42 schemes, 36 provide for the election of trustees by direct popular vote (in six of them in combination with trustees appointed by other modes of representation—e.g., by Guardians, Town Council, &c). In 13 of these 36 schemes the popular element is in a majority, in 20 in a minority, and in three on an equality. Of the six schemes in which no provision is made for a directly popular election, in three the representative element is in a majority, in two in a minority, and in one on an equality. Of the 42 schemes thus analysed, 24 provide for the appointment of co-optative trustees.

  GOODS RATES TO SOUTHAMPTON DOCKS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the London and South Western Railway Company are, in contravention of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, Clause 27, carrying goods, cheese, bacon, lard, eggs, &c, to and from steamships at Southampton Docks and London at rates not one-third of those charged for similar goods to and from Southampton and London, thereby giving a preferential rate of some 70 per cent. in favour of the foreigner as against the British farmer and Home producer; and whether he will make any representations to the company in the matter?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): I have received a complaint on the subject, which I have forwarded to the London and South Western Railway Company for their observations. I have no power to determine questions of undue preference.
  MAJOR RASCH: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to send him a copy of the rate-book, which I have here?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not dispute the facts at all. But the Board of Trade have no power to intervene or to determine questions of this kind; they must go before the Railway Commissioners.

  SECOND DIVISION CLEHKS.
  MR. THORNTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury,

  1493
  with reference to the Memorials from the clerks of the Second Division, which are now at the Treasury, when a reply to these Memorials may be expected?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): Memorials from Second Division clerks are being received from various Departments, and the Treasury will probably before long consider the list to be complete, and will then take into consideration what reply should be returned.

  IRISH MAGISTRATES AND LICENSING QUESTIONS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Owen Joseph Kelly, Mountain View, Blackrock, County Louth, upon whom the Commission of the Peace was lately Conferred, sat on the Bench at Licensing Sessions for the County of Louth on the 31st October last; whether he is aware that Mr. Kelly is a partner in or connected with the firm of C. Smyth and Company, wholesale and retail wine and spirit merchants, Clanbrassie Street, Dundalk; and whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish, Sir, to know whether it is according to the practice of the House, unless some illegality or impropriety is suggested, to allow questions of this kind to be put in regard to private individuals? What this gentleman did is a common occurrence in England, and I do not see why it should be complained of in Ireland.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: It is because of its illegality that I put the question.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot rule that the question is out of Order.
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): The inquiries into this matter are not quite completed. It has been referred to the Lord Chancellor, and I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Monday.

  SOLDIERS' PENSIONS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the case of Terence McCarroll, of Beragh, County Tyrone,' who was admitted to pension on 11th August, 1874, at the rate of 8d. per day, is he aware that the War Office recognised in 1890 that a mistake of 1d. per day had
  1494
  been made, and paid the sum of £4 13s. 6d. as arrears; and will he explain why payment in full has been refused?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): Under the Royal Warrant then in operation, Terence McCarroll was rightly pensioned in 1874 at 8d. a day. A new rule was, however, made in 1887, under which the pension was increased, on application in 1890, to 9d., and arrears were granted from the date of the new rule.

  THE OIL RIVERS PROTECTORATE REVENUE.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-whether he is aware that the revenue of the Oil Rivers Protectorate is chiefly derived from gin and from German rum; what course is adopted with regard to the balance on the annual accounts of the Protectorates which are under the Foreign Office, such as the Oil Rivers Protectorate and the Zanzibar Protectorate; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of providing that full accounts of revenue and expenditure, showing the system of audit and disposal of surplus, if any, shall be annually laid before Parliament?
  SIR E. GREY: The Report from the Oil Rivers Protectorate laid in June of this year shows that the chief dutiable imports are rum, gin, and tobacco; but in order to form a just idea of the trade of the Protectorate the character and amount of free goods, mostly British, should be taken into consideration. Any surplus revenue must be employed for the purposes of meeting obligations imposed by the Protectorate, there being a stipulation to that effect in the Anglo German Agreement of June, 1885. The Commissioner in the Niger Coast Protectorate will be consulted as to whether complete Returns can be furnished as suggested. The Zanzibar revenue is in a different position. It is the Sultan's; and the British officers connected with the Revenue Department are employed and paid by His Highness. Financial reports are laid annually for the information of the House, but they are not subject to British audit.

  COLLISIONS ON THE THAMES.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a Return of the number of collisions on the River Thames, and the number of lives lost therefrom, during the last five years; and what steps the Government propose taking to lessen the number of these catastrophies?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the hon. Member will move for a Return of the number of collisions on the River Thames, and the number of lives lost therefrom, it shall be prepared and laid upon the Table without delay. The navigation of the river is primarily under the control of the Conservancy; but, as I have stated on previous occasions, the Board of Trade are fully alive to the difficulties attending such navigation, and, in conjunction with the Conservancy, are adopting all possible means to secure the public safety.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has not received representations from Thames Pilots employed under the Conservancy Board to the effect that the new system of lights is likely to cause an increased number of collisions in the Thames?
  MR. MUNDELLA: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  VOLUNTEER MEDICAL ORGANISATION IN EDINBURGH.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether representations have recently been made by a deputation of Volunteer Medical Officers that it is impossible to raise brigade bearer companies, and recommending that companies of the Volunteer Medical Staff Corps be sanctioned instead; and if, in view of these facts, he will further consider the question of sanctioning a Volunteer Medical Staff Corps company for Edinburgh, which can fulfil all the functions of a brigade bearer company and be at once raised.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to my reply to my hon. Friend on the 4th instant. The scheme of mobilisation does not admit of more Volunteer Staff Corps companies; but bearer companies are
  1496
  required, and I do not doubt that Edinburgh and its neighbourhood will in due time produce them.

  CRIMEAN VETERANS.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been called to the report of a coroner's inquest upon Charles Guyett, who had served in the Crimea; and whether the War Office will give the claims of the Crimean soldiers serious consideration?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL, Hanley): The pensioner referred to was discharged in 1855 on a pension of 9d. per day, which he held for 38 years. He had only six years' service; and his pension was given because he had been severely wounded. He does not appear to have applied for an increase of pension on the ground of increased disability to earn a livelihood, nor for admission as an in-pensioner of Chelsea Hospital, for which he was eligible. Serious consideration has been given already to the claims both of Crimean and Indian pensioners, and a large number of those who have 10 years' service have been put on special pension.
  MR. HANBURY: I should like to ask, as a matter of fact, what the War Office is doing in regard to these Indian and Crimean veterans? Are fresh pensions being granted?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Pensions are being granted as vacancies arise.
  MR. HANBURY: What is the number; I understood it was to be extended?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member is referring to what are called "compassionate pensions." I do not know what the exact number is, but it has been extended within the last year. They are granted in perpetuity, and as vacancies arise they are filled up.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Is there not any fund like the Patriotic Fund from which the pensions could be supplemented in particular cases?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is not. It cannot be done from the Patriotic Fund, as that was created for a definite and special purpose, not for the pensioning of soldiers, but to meet the claims of the widows and orphans.

  RULES OF THE ROAD AT SEA.
  SIR G. RUSSELL (Berks, Workingham): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any objections have been received by the Board of Trade to the proposed Rules of the Road at Sea; and, if so, will he lay those objections before the House?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certain objections to the revised Rules of the Road at Sea have been received by the Board of Trade. These were referred to the Rules of the Road Committee. That Committee has now reported to me, and I propose to lay all the Papers before the House with as little delay as possible. This Committee was ably presided over by the hon. and learned Recorder of London, to whom, and to his colleagues, the best thanks of the Board of Trade are due.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that these proposed new Rules ordain no fewer than 18 separate and distinct sets of lights to be carried by ships instead of 10 as under the old regulations?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think the hon. Member had better wait till he sees them on the Table.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: As the right hon. Gentleman does not know his own Rules I will repeat the question on the 27th instant.

  IRISH NATIONAL GALLEEY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the National Gallery Buildings in Dublin require extension; and whether, in view of the fact that a large number of pictures and engravings cannot now be exhibited, while many of those exhibited are only seen under great disadvantage, he will advise the Treasury to give effect to the Resolution of the Board of the 3rd November, 1892?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The matter has more than once been before the Treasury. I am afraid I can see no prospect, in the present state of the finances, of providing funds for extending the gallery in the Estimates for the ensuing year.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin County,
  1498
  South, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Vote of £90,000 in the last Parliament to the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund has placed the fund on a sound financial footing; and, if not, what is the present state of the fund and the probable amount of the deficit; and whether the actuaries have completed their valuation of the fund; if so, when their Report will be in the hands of Members?
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg at the same time to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Report has yet been made on the state of: the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund; and, if so, when will this be published?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Report of the actuaries on the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund is in the hands of the Treasury, and we are considering the recommendations which we should make upon it. We hope by the commencement of the next Session to lay our conclusions on the Table.
  MR. SEXTON: The late Government promised the Report itself; how soon will it be furnished?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will consider the matter.

  RUNAWAY SLAVES IN ZANZIBAR.
  MR. J. PEASE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Decree of 20th August, 1890, issued at Zanzibar, directing a slave owner to punish his slave in the event of his running away, and giving slave owners power to refuse money offered by a slave for the purchase of his freedom, has since been revoked or in any way modified?
  SIR E. GREY: The Decree of August 20, 1890, was issued in consequence of a dangerous excitement among masters and slaves owing to misinterpretation of the previous Decree of the 1st of August. It explained that the law was not altered as regards slaves who ran away, or were accused of crimes. It further stated that the stipulation in the previous Decree as to the concurrence of the Sultan's Arab subjects in the adjustment of the tariff for purchasing freedom must be understood to convey that the assent of the owners was an essential condition. There has been no further alteration in either of the Decrees, and they are both in force.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: Does not the hon. Baronet think there is reason to fear that the giving way to what he calls dangerous excitement may produce dangerous excitement in the future when we again take the steps we shall possibly have to take?
  SIR E. GREY: The number of slaves is diminishing to such an extent in Zanzibar that I hope that in the course of a few years the place of slaves will be entirely taken by free labour; and in that case there will be no danger of this particular excitement arising.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not the case that at Bengazi the way of punishing slaves for running away is to kill them?
  SIR E. GREY: I am afraid I cannot answer the question without notice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will put the question on Wednesday, the 27th.

  SUICIDE OF AN IRISH RAILWAY SERVANT,
  MR. M. AUSTIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been directed to the case of a man named Peter Sharkey, a fireman in the employment of the Great Northern Railway (Ireland), who committed suicide; if he is aware that at the inquest it was shown the deceased worked on an average 14 hours per day, and even after these prolonged hours of work he was put to shunting, but broke down through physical exhaustion; and that the coroner's jury were unanimous in their condemnation of the excessive number of hours worked by the employees on the Great Northern line; whether he is also aware that a system prevails on this railway of subordinates giving presents to their superior officers with a view of getting promotion, and the failure of the deceased to comply with this practice made him obnoxious to his overseers; and will an investigation be made into the foregoing statements, and steps taken of protecting the lives of the men in the service of the Great Northern Railway?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received from a Member of this House a newspaper account of the inquest referred to by the hon. Member, which I have treated as a representation within the meaning of the Railway Regulation Act, 1893.
  1500
  Yesterday I directed an Inspecting Officer to inquire into that representation.

  THE UNEMPLOYED IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, with a view to adding to the information already in possession of the House with regard to the extent of the prevailing distress consequent on large numbers of workmen being out of employment, he can see his way to issue a Circular to Local Authorities in Scotland similar in terms to that issued by the Local Government Board on 12th February, 1886?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: From the Reports which I received through the Board of Supervision so far back as June last, with a view to preparation for the coming winter, it was satisfactory to find that the Local Authorities had last year taken measures to provide work for those of the unemployed who were prepared to-accept it. This duty was undertaken, voluntarily by the Local Authorities without any Circular having been issued by the Board of Supervision, and the confidence of the Board in the judgment of the Local Authorities seems to have been fully justified. During the past few months I have been kept informed at very frequent intervals of the state of matters as regards the unemployed in the various localities, and so far they have been satisfactory. The Board of Supervision are very unwilling to issue a Circular so long as the close inspection which is being maintained proves that the steps-taken in the principal centres are sufficient to meet the emergency.
  MR. DALZIEL: Up to what date has the right hon. Gentleman received information?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have received a most important Report this morning dealing with the last few days.

  THE RAILWAY COMMISSION.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the lay members of the Railway Commission are subject to the recent Order in Council which regulates the age of retirement; and on what system is the pension of these officials calculated?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The authoritative decision as to whether a particular

  1501
  Civil servant is subject to the provisions of the Order in Council rests with a competent Court of Law and not with the Treasury; but, subject to this qualification, and having reference to the conditions of tenure of the appointed Railway Commissioners as specified in Section 3 of the Railway, &c, Act of 1888, the Treasury is not of opinion that the Commissioners are subject to compulsory retirement under Clause 10 of the Order in Council. The question whether the office is one carrying title to pension has not yet been determined.

  COLDBATH FIELDS MONEY ORDER OFFICE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General what sum has been spent upon the Money Order Office, lately Coldbath Fields Prison, since it was pronounced by the official surveyor to be fit for occupation; what portion of this was expended upon sanitary alterations; and whether it is intended to incur further expenditure with this object?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): This is rather a question for the Office of Works, but, so far as I am aware, the cost of adapting and fitting up the Money Order Office in the first instance was £2,200, of which £320 was spent on additional gas lights and warming apparatus after the staff had moved in. Since then £180 has been spent on extending the warming apparatus, and possibly some additional expenditure has been incurred, but I am unable to give exact figures. The hon. Member is probably aware that I have appointed a Commission to inquire into the allegation as to the sanitary condition of the office, and until I receive their Report I am unable to answer the last paragraph.

  SECUNDERABAD BARRACKS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is a fact that a young officer of the 19th Hussars died at Bangalore on the 22nd of November of typhoid fever, contracted during a course of musketry at Secunderabad in the old Lancer barracks; whether these barracks have not on more than one occasion been condemned as unfit for habitation on account of their insanitary condition; and whether the Government of India
  1502
  will forbid their further use until their defects have been remedied?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.): The Secretary of State has no information on the subject, but will ask the Government of India for a Report.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN FERMOY.
  MR. W. ABRAHAM: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state when the arbitrator will make his final award in the matter of No. 3 scheme for labourers' cottages in Fermoy Union, commenced in 1889; what has caused such delay; and when is the scheme likely to be completed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT SIR J. T. HIBBERT (who replied), said, I am informed that the arbitrator closed his inquiry on the 30th August last, and on the 1st September he forwarded to the clerk of the Union certain queries arising on the schedules deposited by the Guardians with reference to the names and tenure of parties interested in the lands. No answers have been furnished to these queries, and it is impossible to proceed with the award until the answers are forthcoming. Such being the cause of the delay, I am afraid it is not possible for me to say when the award will be completed.

  THE ANTI-SLAVERY EDICT OF AUGUST, 1890.
  MR. T. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office were informed of the cancelling or withdrawal of Clauses of the Anti-Slavery Edict of 1st August, 1890; whether the Proclamation, dated 28 days later, was issued with the knowledge and consent of the Foreign Office and, whether our Slave Trade policy in the Protectorate of Zanzibar has had any, and what, effect on the Slave Trade that supplies slaves for use on the coast plantations under the British Protectorate in East Africa?
  SIR E. GREY: The second Decree, the effect of which I have already explained in my answer to the hon. Member for Tyneside, was issued without previous communication with Her Majesty's Government. As far as our knowledge goes, the supply of slaves from the

  1503
  interior to the coast plantations of the Protectorate has, under British control, absolutely ceased.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: Is it not admitted by Mr. Rodd, the Acting Consul General, that there is slave-smuggling still going on even in the Island of Zanzibar itself?
  SIR E. GREY: In some instances it may have occurred; but it is absolutely illegal, and I am quite sure the officials are doing their best to put down anything of the kind.

  THE FEATHBRSTONE DISTURBANCES.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose affording the House an opportunity for discussing the Reports of the Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the disturbances at Featherstone on the 7th of September, 1893?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian): This is a question, which, as the hon. Member is aware, has been answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I have nothing at all to add to his answer, for I very strongly concur in the opinion that, apart from any other question of policy as to the time for discussing that question, it would be most unfortunate that the question should be discussed until the evidence has been placed before the House, and time allowed for its consideration.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When will the evidence be presented?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I understand that, is not a question for me to answer without notice.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will repeat it on Wednesday the 27th.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Member will also have the kindness to put it to the proper person, the Home Secretary.
  Subsequently,
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid: I have received a communication from the Home Secretary, who has given orders for the preparation and presentation of the evidence at the earliest possible time.

  THE IRISH EDUCATION ACT.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury
  1504
  whether, in order to give effect to the Irish Education Act, it is necessary to pass a short Bill before the 1st January; and, if so, when the Bill will be introduced?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Arising out of the answer given to a similar question, will the Chancellor of the Duchy be good enough to say how he intends to bring the Compulsory Education Act into force on January 1, if the Bill to which reference is made is not yet printed, and is to be treated as a contentious measure?
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he considers the present Government responsible for the blunder of the late Government in passing a defective Act?
  MR. BRYCE (who replied)said: The position is this: A flaw in the Education Act of 1892 will prevent compulsion from being applied, or rather will prevent the operation of the section providing payment of the expenses of the Attendance Committees who are to apply it, in certain places, but in other places the Act will apply.

  THE MEXICAN DOLLAR AT HONG KONG.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there has been great scarcity and inconvenience in Hong Kong and Singapore through short supplies of the Mexican dollar, which is the principal currency here; and whether he will comply with the wishes of the leading bankers and commercial men of the East by giving instructions for the coinage of a British dollar at the Indian or Sydney Mints at the present favourable opportunity?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): It is true that there was some scarcity of Mexican dollars in the month of July and during the first week of August last. This was, however, owing to exceptional causes, and there is now an ample supply. The idea of a British dollar does not appear to have found much favour in the Straits Settlements; and at Hong Kong it has been abandoned. In the latter Colony it is now proposed to legalise the Japanese yen—a coin of equal weight and fineness with the Mexican dollar. This proposal

  1505
  is at present under the consideration of Lord Herschell's Committee as reconstituted for the consideration of colonial currency questions. The yen, I may observe, is already legal tender in the Straits Settlements.

  THE IRISH LABOURERS' ACTS.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the condition of the labourers and the working of the Labourers' Act in connection with the Land Act of 1881 will be covered by the Order of Reference to the Commission to inquire into the working of the Land Acts?
  MR. BRYCE (for Mr. J. MORLEY): My right hon. Friend does not contemplate that the Reference to the proposed Select Committee shall include an inquiry into the working of the Labourers' Acts.

  THE AMENDMENTS ON THE PARISH COUNCILS BILL.
  MR. BARTLEY: In reference to the statement of the Prime Minister last night, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that one of his supporters yesterday put down 28 Amendments to the Parish Councils Bill? I refer to the hon. Member for Sunderland.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I quite understand this question is not put in the expectation of an answer being given, but to proclaim a fact. I see the motive, which is merely to embarrass the general merits of the question itself.
  MR. STOREY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill if the 28 so-called Amendments are not practically one Amendment—which many of us consider important—but which certainly will not be discussed so as to waste the time of the House?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): The effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment would, I believe, be very much to reduce the bulk of the Bill.

  THE EAST INDIA LOAN BILL.
  SIR J. GORST: Will the East India Loan Bill be taken to-night?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope in the course of the evening to make arrangements with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London by which further discussion will be taken on this Bill on Monday, when the discussion on the Parish Councils Bill will be stopped for that purpose. I have been given to understand that great inconvenience will be caused to the other House if this Bill cannot go up there on Tuesday. I, therefore, hope the arrangements I have indicated will be agreed to.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)
ORDER OF THE DAY.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 274.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 14th December.]
  [TWENTY-FIRST NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 18 (Temporary provisions as to small parishes).
  Page 2, line 10:—
  Question proposed,
  That 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" be added after the word " day."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  To leave out the words "but subject to provisions made by a grouping order."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that when the House adjourned on the previous night he was endeavouring to explain that in his humble opinion the words were not only mere surplusage, but were also deceiving. All through the discussions upon the Bill they had had great difficulty in

  1507
  understanding what was exactly meant by the words "parish meeting." He had been in constant attendance during the Debates, and it appeared to him that there were three forms of parish meeting. First, there was the administrative form which was to be the head of the village, and was to manage all its affairs in substitution for the Parish Council. Then there was the parish meeting which elected its own Parish Council; and, thirdly, there was the parish meeting which elected a portion of the Parish Council. He would call the first class the administrative parish meeting, the second the caucus parish meeting, and the third the ward meeting. Or he might adopt another nomenclature—the parish meeting major, the parish meeting minor, and the parish meeting minimus. The last-named was a creature of the grouping order. But the clause now under discussion dealt only with the "parish meeting major." He objected to the words which it was proposed to omit for several reasons. For instance, it was probable that in 999 cases out of 1,000, when they associated parishes together under a grouping order, there would be more than 200 inhabitants, and necessarily there would be a Parish Council, which would at once remove the grouped parishes from the purview of the clause. Again, in that clause they were dealing with an administrative parish meeting, which was entirely destined for the grouping question, and, therefore, the words "subject to provisions made by a grouping order" were entirely unnecessary. There were some parishes so small that when grouped together they would not have a population of 200. In his opinion, if words were not inserted, difficulties would arise. It was for this reason that he cordially supported the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman below him.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.)said, this was a pure drafting provision in order to guard against confusion if in the future a grouping order was made. They had made provision for Parish Councils and meetings, and they provided for, the grouping of parishes. They could not go further at present. Circumstances might, and probably would, change in many cases, and they provided for that.
  1508
  The matter appeared to him to be perfectly simple.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he confessed he was not quite convinced by the argument of the right hon. Gentleman, and he did feel that the proposal to interfere with the powers of the parish meeting, in the event of grouping with other parishes, was a somewhat serious matter. Parishes, however, would have it ill their power to say whether they would be grouped or not. He would not press the question any further, but would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that his intentions were quite clear, but they were not clear in the provisions of the Bill, and in the country there would be some doubt as to the power to be exercised in the event of grouping.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the point was clearly expressed.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, it appeared to him, and he should say so with all respect, that the clause was not clear. He apprehended there were people as stupid as they were, and, as the point was not unimportant, they ought to do their best to render it quite clear.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is perfectly clear.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he could only regret his own stupidity, and again ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether they should not have some definition that would be of a satisfactory character to those who would have to administer and interpret the Act?
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he would suggest to leave out the words mentioned in the Amendment, and say, at the end of the clause, that such powers should cease where grouping took place, and that the powers to be exercised were those indicated by the grouping order.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid, whatever the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were, the words as they stood were extremely vague. They might be made more distinct. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to convey that where parishes were grouped this

  1509
  clause would not apply at all. If that were so, why not state it? The clause might be good enough as it was now worded for the right hon. Gentleman, but it would not be good enough, he feared, for the country-folk who would have to deal with it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. PAGETmoved:—
  In line 3, to leave out the words " assembly of the parish meeting," and insert the words " meeting of the parish assembly."
  He thought it would be admitted there was a good deal to be said for this Amendment. His object was to distinguish between the body whose function it would be to elect the Parish Council and the body which, under this clause, would have administrative, and not merely elective, authority. When the Bill was passed simple-minded people would be called upon to interpret it, and they should be enabled to draw the distinction that necessarily arose in this instance. The use of the word "parish" assembly would enable this to be done. If the right hon. Gentleman did not like the term "assembly" he was willing to adopt any other that he thought would be equally suitable. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn to Clause 4—
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order! The Amendment which the hon. Baronet is about to propose is not exactly in Order. It has already been decided on Clause 1 that there shall be a parish meeting in every rural parish. I think that covers the point he raises and rules this Amendment.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he did not wish to interfere with the provision as to parish meetings in the least. They had in Clause 4 a provision for the use of the rooms by the electors to discuss certain questions that did not come under the heading of a "parish meeting." He would give it any other name; it might be a "parish assembly"—it could not be a parish meeting. He was satisfied his Amendment, which he would move in another form, would simplify matters very much.
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: In what form does the hon. Baronet propose to move? I cannot put the words "parish assembly," seeing that a decision
  1510
  on the question of " parish meeting" has been come to already.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he would propose to add to his Amendment as it stood—
  "Which in the case of a parish not having a parish meeting shall be called the parish assembly."
  MR. W. LONGsaid, on a point of Order, although they had decided the question of parish meetings, he would like to know whether this was not the first time they had been called upon to decide what they should call an assembly where the parish meeting was to be an administrative authority?
  THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The words "parish meeting" were agreed to on Clause 1. I will consider the words proposed by the hon. Baronet to be added to his Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL, Hackney, S.)said, he thought the Committee would agree that their time might be better occupied than in discussing Amendments of this kind. The clause merely dealt with the case of small parishes which had no Parish Councils, and he could not see that anybody's intelligence would be illuminated by the words proposed. There was no real substance in the Amendment, and he was surprised that the hon. Baronet should have thought it worth while to propose it.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, the Attorney General might be right as to the construction of the Amendment, and perhaps this was not the proper place in which it should be inserted; but the difficulty raised by the hon. Baronet was a real one. When the new proposals of the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) were under discussion he himself had pointed out that the difficulty might arise, and he had understood that the question of the name of the assembly now under discussion was to be considered. It was desirable that the parish meeting, which was the governing body of the parish, should have a different name from the gathering together of the electors for the purpose of electing a Council; and although this might not be the best place to consider the matter, he thought it required a little more attention upon its merits than the Attorney General had bestowed upon it.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, they were creating a great many difficulties that would have to be dealt with again; and he must protest against the postponement of so many intricate questions for discussion at a later stage. He thought this particular difficulty should be now decided. There would be perpetual confusion as to the powers of the two assemblies unless there was some distinguishing name, and, as the members of the parish meeting would not all be Attorney Generals, he hoped the matter would be pressed. "Assembly" suggested assembly-rooms and operations other than those which would be carried on in the humdrum sphere of the parish meeting; but he thought "convention" or the American word "town meeting" might be used with great advantage. They need not, however, quarrel about words. All they should do was to make the meaning as clear as possible.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, there was great difficulty, no doubt, with regard to the question raised. In his opinion, some qualifying term, such as " parish election meeting," would meet the difficulty, or, if it was not too late, that the parish meeting with administrative functions should retain the old name " Vestry."
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEthought the rural electors might be credited with the intelligence to know that, in the parish where there was no Parish Council, all the powers of that body would practically be exercised by the parish meeting.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he thought it important to have different names for the parish meeting when acting in two capacities, and would suggest that they should be guided by the analogy of the Home Rule Bill, in which the Government proposed a Legislative Council and a Legislative Assembly. There was a great difference between the two forms of parish meeting. In the one case it would be a permanent Legislative Body and in the other case it would be a body that could he likened to the silkworm, which, when it had laid its eggs, died. This, no doubt, was a small matter, but small, things were of importance in small districts, where small people, so to speak, were affected.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he wished to move to insert the words "and vice-chairman" after the word "chairman." An immense amount of work would devolve on the chairman. He would have to keep the accounts and take care of the agenda paper. Supposing he went away before the end of the year or died, there must be someone to take his place.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  In line 3 of the first sub-section, after the word " chairman," to insert the words " and vice-chairman."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. H.H. FOWLERsaid, it was not necessary to have a vice-chairman on a small Parish Council.
  SIR J. GORSThoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the matter. Nothing would please these small meetings better than to have a number of officials.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, they would be turned into ridicule.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid, there would be no ridicule in this case. If they did not provide for a vice-chairman such official would have to be appointed whenever the chairman was away.
  MR. HANBURYwas inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who was following the precedent of the Vestry.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that in the case of a borough the Mayor appointed a Deputy-Mayor, and he imagined that the same thing would be done in a Parish Council.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, it would not be advisable to divide the duties in the way proposed. If. they had a man to represent the chairman, they would want another to represent the vice-chairman. They would have one to act as clerk, so that, outside officials, the meeting might consist of one.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, " That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  After the last Amendment, to add the words— " (2) The parish meeting shall assemble not less than four times in each year."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there added."
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board if he was really anxious to adhere to this sub-section. Was it necessary to say that the parish meeting should meet a certain number of times in the year? Could they not leave that to the parish itself? The right hon. Gentleman had confidence in local institutions; then why not trust the Parish Councils? They did not tell other assemblies—save those which met for judicial purposes—how many times a year they were to meet.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes; the Town Councils.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: They are not bound by Statute.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes; they are obliged to meet once a quarter.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that at any rate it was not wise to encumber the measure with a provision which would be burdensome on a small parish. In a parish of only 100 population four meetings a year would be unnecessary. He had no objection to the parishioners meeting 40 times a year, if they wished to, but he objected to compelling them.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, his original proposal was that the parish meeting, which would be the governing body, should delegate its work to a committee, which should report periodically to the parish meeting. It would be necessary for the parish meeting to take place in order to keep in touch with the executive. It did not seem to him likely that even if left to itself the parish meeting would be held less frequently than once a quarter.
  MR. BILLsaid, that in the absence of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Jeffreys) he would move—
  To leave out the words " four times," and insert " twice," adding the words, " and at other times on the requisition of the Parochial Committee, or of one-sixth of the parocial electors."
  He conceived it altogether unnecessary to require the parishioners in a , small parish to meet four times a year. He had endeavoured to find out how many parishes there were in England of below 100 population, but had been unable to do
  1514
  so. All he could say was that in his own portion of Staffordshire there were 150 parishes of below 100 population and 18 of below 50. Taking this percentage, it was probable that there were 1,500 or 1,600 parishes in the country of less than 100 population. Surely the work the parish meetings would have to do in these places would be infinitesimal; therefore he thought the words he proposed to add would be useful. They would enable the parish meeting to be called together whenever the Parochial Committee had done some work which that meeting had authorised. It must be remembered that the bulk of the work now performed by the Vestry would be withheld from the parish meeting. The principal work that would have to be done would be the election of parish officers; therefore, it seemed to him that, considering the large number of small parishes there were of under 100 population and the small amount of work they would be called on to transact, it was superfluous to call the meeting together four times a year. To call the meeting together so often would be to cause great inconvenience to the parishioners.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  To leave out the words " four times in each year," and insert the words, " twice in each year, and at other times on the requisition of the Parochial Committee or of one-sixth of the parochial electors."—(Mr. Bill.)
  Question proposed, "That the words ' four times in each, year' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the Government could not accept the Amendment. He would call attention to Sub-section 3 of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board—a sub-section which would be, considered presently. It said—
  " (3) The parish meeting may appoint a committee of their, own member, 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."
  From, this it would be seen that the committee which the parish meeting would have the power to appoint would have no effective power of their own.

  1515
  Their acts would have to be approved by the parish meeting, and that was an additional reason why the parish meeting should assemble at shorter intervals than six months. The words the hon. Member proposed to add provided for a case in which the Parochial Committee might desire to consult the parish as to the work they proposed to do. But the parish might desire to meet to condemn the action of the committee. On the one hand, the committee might require approval of their acts, and on the other the parish might desire to check something the committee were doing. In view of the important question the Committee had to decide, he did not think it desirable to prolong this discussion.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that in the first sub-section of the first Schedule provision would be made for the calling of a meeting by
  "the Chairman of the Parish Council or other conveners of the meeting."
  He did not know what "or other conveners of the meeting" meant, but it seemed to him that the sub-section was intended to convey that the chairman should call a meeting whenever there was any business to transact.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, the Amendment dealt with what appeared to him to be a defect in the Bill. As far as he could see, no arrangement was made in the Bill as to who were to summon the parish meetings. He should like to see an arrangement made by which a certain number of the electors would have the power of doing so. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) said the Municipal Corporations met four times a year, but he did not think the two cases were on all-fours. There was plenty of work to do in a borough, but there might be no more work to do in a parish than should occupy the attention of a single meeting.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that Clause 32 provided that—
  "The Chairman of the Parish Council, or any two Parish Councillors, or in a parish not having a Parish Council the chairman of the parish meeting, or any six parochial electors, may at any time convene a parish meeting."
  He did not see what objection there could be to the parish meeting being called together four times a year. There was hardly a Town Council in the country that did not meet 12 times a
  1516
  year, though the statutory provision was that they should meet four times a year. Hon. Members had been saying all through that they were anxious to educate the parish in administrative work, and that the evil of the Vestry was that it met at no fixed time and only about once a year.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman asked what objection there could be to the parish meeting meeting four times a year. Well, there was no objection to its meeting four times a year, or 40 times a year if it felt disposed. But as this was an educational matter, they should trust the parish to meet when it considered it necessary to do so. There were some parishes in the country containing no more than 10 or 18 families, and which were spread out over five or six or eight square miles, and for Parliament to say that in such cases the parish meetings should be held four times a year seemed not an educational system, but a system of leading strings which was one of the worst features of the Bill. There was no provision made for a quorum, and the whole thing seemed to him to be a matter of petticoat government. He trusted the hon. Member would press his Amendment to a Division.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he would point out a consideration that he thought material—namely, that according to the Bill as it stood parish meetings could be summoned as often as they might be required, but he thought it ought to be provided that one meeting should be held during the year. Supposing it was laid down that the parish meeting should be held four times a year, there was no machinery in the Bill to enforce it. The parish might refuse to meet four times a year, in which case a mandamus would have to be obtained, he imagined. Surely it would not be desirable to put on the Statute Book that which would practically be a dead letter.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that four times a year were not too often for the parish meeting to assemble, and he hoped they would do so oftener; but as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had pointed out, Sub-section 3 of the Amendment said that the parish meeting might appoint a Committee and delegate powers to it, and this in itself would necessitate frequent meetings.

  1517
  That, therefore, would furnish an argument against a statutory necessity for a meeting once a quarter. In addition to the difficulties expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, there was another which had occurred to him. The duties enumerated in this sub-section were duties, for the most part, in relation to the exercise of power by the parishes which were not grouped; but in the case of grouped parishes having a Joint Council would there be a statutory necessity for them to hold quarterly meetings? If there was no work for the meetings to perform, it might embarrass them to call them together four times a year.
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that the difficulty of enforcing the meetings suggested by the hon. Member for the Waltham stow Division would apply to one meeting as well as to four. There might be a remedy by mandamus, but they knew that, as a rule, no difficulty arose in such cases when Parliament laid down that a certain number of meetings should take place. There was a precedent for the proposal of the Government in the Municipal Act. As to the grouped parishes, when once grouping took place the provisions as to the parish meeting would not apply, because the Parish Council would then take the administrative duties of the parish meeting.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that an hon. Member had suggested that after the Bill had passed into law not one meeting might be held by some of the parishes. If there was any reasonable ground for believing that,it would show how entirely unnecessary this measure was. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin that four meetings would not be too many for a great number of parishes in the country, but he considered that they would be acting unwisely by making a hard-and-fast compulsory arrangement. There might be parishes where the holding of four meetings would impose unnecessary trouble on the parishioners. Take the villages in the scattered Fen districts. He knew villages that could hardly be called villages—districts 10 or 14 miles long—with scattered populations where, probably, there would very seldom be urgent business for the parish meeting to transact, and where, therefore, to insist upon four meetings a year would be to
  1518
  put the parishioners to unnecessary inconvenience. If there was business to transact, the meetings would be held, but surely in these cases it would be wise, and acting only reasonably towards these people, to leave it to them to decide how often they should meet.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that if the villagers attended these meetings, and three times out of four found no business to transact, they would get disgusted with the thing. The best men would refuse to attend altogether, and much of the Bill would prove a dead letter. Why could they not allow these folks some discretion in the matter? They should insist upon one meeting a year being held. At that meeting the committee could either be appointed or could report its proceedings to the parish; and they might depend upon it that if at any other time the committee had a report to make, it would call a meeting to receive it. It was a great misfortune that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who did not understand the conditions of life in rural districts, should attempt to improve these districts in a way which they did not want to be improved, and should be so determined to legislate upon the lines of the Municipal Corporations Act. In a Corporation everyone know what was going to be done, and 40 or 50 meetings could be had every year if necessary, but the statutory obligation needful in that case should not be applied to a constituency of only 100 or 200. In the case of the Parish Council it was only proposed that there should be one statutory meeting a year, after which it would be left to the parishioners to meet as often as they liked. Why could not the parish meeting be treated in the same manner?
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, this was a very minute point, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board might well give way upon it. He could conceive a parish containing only 10 ratepayers, and it might be highly inconvenient to them to meet once a quarter. The right hon. Gentleman said there were to be four parish meetings a year, but he did not say that there were to be meetings every quarter. There was nothing in the Amendment to prevent the four meetings being held on the same day, which, of course, would be absurd.

  1519
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General said that when an Act of Parliament laid down a rule that Act was obeyed. That was not his (Mr. Stanley Leighton's) experience. His experience was that Acts of Parliament were invariably broken. In the present case, if there were no means of putting the Act into force, it certainly would be a dead letter.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he had lived many years in a rural district, and was not at all unacquainted with the methods of public life in rural parishes. Where there was a large area with a thin and scattered population the public life was not of very strong vitality. He was sure they all deserved to stimulate the public life of these small communities. If a directory clause of this kind were not adopted the first parish meeting would appoint a small executive committee, and the danger was that that committee would feel that it was not worth while to take the initiative in calling the parish meeting together. The result would be that the bulk of the inhabitants would get out of touch with the transaction of ordinary business, and the next parish meeting would have to approve of the whole proceedings of the committee for the year that had just expired. He asked whether it was in the interest of public life that everything should be put into the hands of a small committee, which would report only once a year? To the inhabitants of a small village a meeting of this kind would be a cheerful and enlivening incident. If Parliament made it plain that the parish meeting must assemble not less than four times a year it would follow as a natural sequence that meetings would be held once a quarter, and every inhabitant of the parish would come to recognise that on such a day in each year the parish meeting must be held, and would fall into the habit of attending it.
  MR. HANBURYpointed out that no quorum was fixed for the parish meeting. If the parish meeting, he added, had only to take place compulsorily twice a year and other meetings had to be summoned by a certain number of parishioners there would be some guarantee that a certain number would attend. If the other meetings were compulsory there would be no such guarantee, and possibly only one man might attend,
  1520
  and he might transact business which might be very detrimental to his fellow-parishioners.
  MR. TOMLINSONobserved, that the parishioners would not attend four meetings a year unless there were something to be done at each of them, and it was quite possible that there would be nothing to do at some of the statutory meetings. He therefore favoured the Amendment.
  MR. J. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONEsaid, that if the proposal of the Government were adopted another example would be furnished of the truth of the old saying, that what was everybody's business was nobody's business. No one would attend the four statutory meetings, because there would be no elected members, and no record of attendances would be published, as was usual with Local Bodies. He could not understand why the President of the Local Government Board should not accept the Amendment; but hon. Members had seen again and again that "the sons of Zeruiah be too hard" for the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Johnstone) could not see what there would be under the Government proposal to prevent a parish having its four meetings on four successive days, so as to get them over at once and save the trouble of assembling periodically when there was nothing to do.
  MR. BILLsaid, he was only anxious that the meetings should not be called together at a time when it would be very inconvenient for the labourers to leave their homes. He thought the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this Bill had been to keep the Parish Councils and parish meetings rather too much in leading strings. He was an advocate for as much freedom as could possibly be accorded to them.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 167; Noes 107.—(Division List, No. 384.)
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to add the words—
  "(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."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.]
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in reference to these words. In Clause 10 there are certain provisions for enabling the Parish Council and the parish meeting to pay their expenses. I understand that as regards the parish meeting the process will be that the chairman will issue a precept to the Board of Guardians, and then obtain the payment of the expenses of the meeting out of the poor rate. The wording of this sub-section seems' to indicate that, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the parish meeting will have the power of raising a loan. This would, of course, go considerably beyond the expenses which appear to be contemplated in the 10th clause. I wish to ask what would be precisely the position of the parish meeting in one of these small parishes with regard to raising money? The first is a case where there is no Parish Council, and the second where a joint Parish Council is appointed for several grouped parishes. I do not think it is at all clear in the Bill, and, further, I think the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that on Clause 10 I ventured to suggest there should be a limit to the power of expenditure of the parish meeting as well as the Parish Council. He then replied that the parish meeting had no power to levy a rate, but they would have that power, through the chairman, under Clause 10, as it now stands—to what extent I do not know. I should like to have an explanation on the point.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As to the words—
  "And delegate to the committee any powers and duties of the parish meeting, other than any power of raising money."
  Of course, we do not contemplate that this committee shall have any power of raising money by loan. The right hon. Gentleman asks, are we to allow the parish meeting to raise a loan. That will, of course, depend upon what the Committee does with Sub-section 7. In that sub-section we propose that—
  "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."
  The County Council may grant this power if it thinks fit. With reference to the actual expenses of the parish
  1522
  meeting, the right hon. Baronet will recollect that we rather had a good deal of discussion on Clause 10, and we there provided that the expenses of the Parish Council should be paid in a certain manner. We did not that night put the parish meeting under the same restrictions as the Parish Council. I said at the time that that would have to be dealt with on Report. There was considerable confusion in the House when that clause was settled, and I saw the next morning we had omitted to limit the expenditure of the parish meeting. Clearly there must be some limit. That is a question which, on a former occasion, I left to the House to decide for itself, and I shall not now interfere with the discretion of the House as to whether the limit should be 6d. or the lower limit which the Member for East Somerset has proposed. Upon that point I have a very open mind. I quite admit there was an omission in not fixing a limit with regard to the parish meeting in the same way as we did in regard to the Parish Council, and words will have to be introduced to deal with the omission. So far as this clause is concerned, it is not proposed that any financial power is to be delegated to the Parish Committee. That must be in the parish meeting itself, not in the committee. If there be any power to borrow money—and I am not very keen as to there being any such power—it must be subject to the control of the County Council. If the County Council thinks fit to grant that power, there would be nothing more to say to it. On the other hand, when we come to Sub-section 7, if the Committee think fit to put in any restriction, I shall be willing to accept it.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I am glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to his intention of moving an Amendment on Report to place the parish meeting on the same footing as the Parish Council with regard to a limit of rating power. What I wish to point out is that in a parish such as this particular clause contemplates, which has a parish meeting and is grouped with other parishes for a Parish Council, the Parish Council would be limited in its rating powers by Clause 10 as it now stands. I think the right hon. Gentleman would not wish, in addition to that that the parish meeting should also have rating powers.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly not.
  MR. BARTLEYmoved to omit the words "any powers and," in order to raise the following question: The clause said that the parish meeting might appoint a committee of their own number and appoint to that committee any powers and duties, and it went on to say that the acts of the committee should be submitted to the parish meeting for their approval. But the parish meeting would have empowered the committee to do certain acts, and the acts would have been done before the committee could again come to the parish meeting for approval of them. If the parish meeting gave the Committee powers to carry out certain powers and duties the Committee could not again come to the parish meeting to get their sanction. They would be stultifying themselves if they left out these words, and he, therefore, moved their omission.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "any powers and."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the question was a very simple one. Under the Act of 1888 powers were given to appoint committees. Municipal Corporations had large powers given to appoint committees, but in every case these committees must have their acts sanctioned by the authority who appointed them. In this case the committee would have power to do certain acts, subject to approval. This was the ordinary form, and the Government could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONmoved to amend the Amendment by inserting, after "raising money," the words—
  "and empower that committee to incur expenses to an amount not exceeding such amount as may be prescribed by such parish meeting."
  These words, he said, were taken from Section 202 of the Public Health Act of 1875. In dealing with Parochial Committees in 1875, it was thought desirable to put in such words as these, and he thought they were equally desirable here. The powers of the parish meeting as to spending money were practically unlimited. The parish meeting might appoint a committee and empower them to
  1524
  incur certain expenses, so surely some limit should be imposed. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To insert, after the words "raising money," the words, " and empower that committee to incur expenses to an amount not exceeding such amount as may be prescribed by such parish meeting."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, " That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member had referred to a Parochial Committee under Section 202 of the Public Health Act. That was a very different body to a committee of a parish.' That Parochial Committee was a committee of the Rural Sanitary Authority, empowered to incur certain expenses and do certain works. He did not believe there was any analogy between that committee and this. This was an administrative committee, to carry on the business of the parish, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, who was responsible for this very good scheme, did not want this committee to be an independent body, but desired it to be under the control of, and responsible to, the parish meeting. The parish meeting met four times a year to ensure that control. The strongest control was the power of the purse, and the parish meeting ought to keep that in their own hands. He should not think of creating, in addition to the parish meeting, an independent spending authority.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSON: Are these committees not empowered to spend any money?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: They will not have any independent power of spending.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, in that case it would be impossible for the committee to carry out their duties. If the parish meeting might delegate to the committee any powers and duties of the parish meeting surely amongst the powers and duties of the parish meeting were the duty and power of spending money. His view of the case was that they could spend money, and he wished to limit the amount.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked, would not the committee be authorised to spend money which had been already raised for administrative purposes?
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the Parish Committee would have the power to spend money, but only if authorised to do so. They would have no initiative of their own.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: That is the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that surely the Parish Committee could spend money which had been already raised by the rates, for the purpose of which they had had authority directly delegated to them by the parish meeting.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the spending authority was the parish meeting. They might resolve that on a certain work they would spend £5, and they would tell the Parish Committee to spend that sum in doing that work; they would thus keep the power of the purse in their own hands.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. BARTLEYmoved the omission of the words " for their approval " from the proposed Amendment. It seemed to him an impossible position for them to authorise the spending of money which was not with their approval. It was quite proper that the acts should be submitted to the parish meeting. But suppose the meeting authorised the Parish Committee to do certain things and spend certain money, when the committee came back to the parish meeting the parish meeting did not approve of their action? It was quite possible that after authorising certain action they might not approve of it. They could not, however, disapprove of the action after it was done; and although it might be submitted to the parish meeting, and the parish meeting might put a stop to the action, it could not disapprove of what was past, and do away with the money already expended, so that these words " with their approval" might lead to the committee being placed in an awkward position.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "for their approval."—(Mr. Bartley.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERthought the hon. Member had not had a wide experience of the working of municipal
  1526
  government in this country. All our Municipalities were acting at this moment under this law, couched in precisely the same words, and were carrying on the same work. The clause in the original Municipal Corporation Act of 1835, and re-enacted in 1882, said—
  "The Council" (that was a Town or City Council) " may, from time to time, appoint out of their own body such and so many committees either of a general or special nature, and consisting of such number of persons as they think fit for any purposes which in the opinion of the Council would be better regulated and managed by means of such Committees, but the acts of every such Committee shall be submitted to the Council for their approval."
  It was under the working of that machinery that the whole of the administrative work of our great towns was carried on. He had had some experience of municipal government, and he had never known the difficulty the hon. Member had raised even present itself to the imagination of a Town Council in carrying on this work.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSexpressed the hope that his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment, for there really was nothing in it. What the sub-section meant was if the parish meeting wished, say, to put a pump down, they would simply instruct the committee to do it, and they might add " at a cost not exceeding £5." The Parish Committee would do it, and then bring up a report. That was a procedure carried on every day.
  MR. HARDYsaid, that a parish meeting was in a different position to a Municipal Council. A parish meeting was the entire of the parochial electors of a parish, and it was quite possible that at one parish meeting a section of the parish might be present, and at the next meeting a different section, who would withdraw their approval of the actual power granted to this particular committee.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to add—
  " (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."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to add the words—
  "(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." —(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONmoved, to insert the following additional provision:—
  "And there shall be transferred to such parish meeting as from the appointed day all other powers, duties, and liabilities exercisable by a Parish Council under Section 6 of this Act."
  He said, that under this clause they had not transferred all the power to the parish meeting which the Parish Council, on behalf of the parish, could exercise; and for the purpose of discovering what the difference was, and why these powers were not given to the parish meeting, he moved this Amendment. The Parish Council, on going into office, were to have transferred to them the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Churchwardens of the parish, except in regard to certain specified matters. These powers, however, were not to be transferred to a parish meeting where there was a parish meeting only without a Parish Council. Whatever these powers were, if it was good they should be transferred to a Parish Council it was equally good that they should be transferred to a parish meeting where there was no Parish Council. Government by parish meeting should be made as full and satisfactory as government by Parish Council. He begged to propose the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  To add, at the end thereof, the words " and there shall be transferred to such parish meeting as from the appointed day all other powers, duties, and liabilities exercisable by a Parish Council under Section 6 of this Act,"—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, it had been again and again explained that the Government did not intend that the parish meeting should have co-ordinate powers with the Parish Council, but the Amend-
  1528
  ment would give by direct operation of the Act, and not as was intended by delegation from the Council, the parish meetings the same powers as the Parish. Councils. That was a proposition to which, the Government could not assent.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, that having attended from day to day during these discussions, he was now somewhat surprised to hear that it was the distinct policy of Her Majesty's Government that the parish meeting should not have co-ordinate powers with the Parish Council. He had understood all along that the intention of the Government was that until a Parish Council was established the parish meeting should, as far as possible, be intrusted with the full powers of the Parish Council.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is exactly the point of difference. We do not propose that they should have the full powers which a Parish Council has. With regard to small parishes, I may remind, the Committee that there are 331 parishes-in England and Wales having a population of less than 25 people, 852 having a population of less than 50, and 1,423 having a population of less than 75. Now,, we say that to interfere in any large degree-with the existing organisations of these small parishes, unless they are grouped, would be both unwise and impracticable. We allow the small parishes to retain their separate parochial existence; we do not interfere with them; but as these parishes rise in population, and the County Council thinks it fit they should be equipped with a fuller organisation, then under Sub-section 7 of my Amendment I have provided that the County Council may confer on the parish meeting any of the additional powers conferred on a Parish Council by this Bill, if it thinks fit so to do. With regard to the Overseer, I may say, however, that it is our intention to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, substituting for the old Corporation of the Overseers the new Corporation of the chairman and Overseers. While I recognise the wisdom of the transfer of a great many of these powers in certain parishes, I think it would be a foolish thing to transfer them in all. The County Council is on the spot; it will know what is suitable for each of these small parishes, and we leave the matter in their hands. I think

  1529
  it will be a startling change to transfer the whole of the existing organisation of the parish to the parish meeting which has no organisation of its own.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid, the statement of the President of the Local Government Board was of an entirely different character and much more satisfactory than the statement of the Attorney General. The Attorney General said that it was the settled policy of the Government to keep the parish meeting in a state of subordination and inferiority to the Parish Council. [Sir C. RUSSELL: No, no.] He was glad to hear that disclaimer. He hoped the policy of the Government would be to give to the parish meetings the full powers and authority of the Parish Councils. The President of the Local Government Board did not give all these small parishes the full powers of the Parish Council, as he thought it would be unwise, but he gave the power to the County Council to gradually extend to these parish meetings the full powers which were vested in the Parish Council. He hoped the Government would adhere to that policy despite any recommendation to the contrary which they might receive from the Attorney General.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that great store had been laid on the fact that the parishes would have powers for the compulsory acquisition and hiring of land, though he had never thought much of it; but now they found that in thousands of small parishes where, perhaps, allotments were most needed, it lay with the County Council to give them this power or to refuse it. That was a great falling-off in the promises of the Government.
  SIR R. PAGETasked whether the County Council would have power to extend to these small parishes any of the powers conferred by the Bill?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It may some time, if I tell the hon. Baronet that we propose to accept the principle of his Amendment lower down on the Paper.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that would entirely dispose of the difference between them. The principle, as he understood it, which separated the treatment of the Parish Council from the parish meeting, was that the entire powers would be conferred at once on the Parish Councils
  1530
  and that they would be conferred gradually on the parish meetings.
  MR. EVERETTsaid, he should be glad if the Government could see their way to accept the Amendment. The principle of the Bill was to associate as many people of the parish as possible with the government of the parish. Why should not the people of the small parishes be associated with their officials in governing the parish? He could not see why the parish meeting should not have the same powers as the Parish Council of a large parish. In the interest of parish government they should deal in the same terms with small parishes as with large parishes. Why should the small parishes be under the obligation of applying to the County Council to confer these privileges on them? The County Council might not be disposed to grant them where it was a Conservative Body. If they were, why should the small parishes make two bites at the cherry when they might have the whole of the cherry at one bite?
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member opposite, and did not see why the small parishes should have to appeal to the County Council to get the rights which the Bill conferred on the large parishes. If the privileges they were granting to the Parish Councils were worth anything at all, why should not the small parishes have them just as well? In fact, some of the smaller parishes wanted these powers a great deal more than the larger parishes.
  MR. L. HARDYsaid, the small parishes would have to go to the County Council for two particular powers—one was to make representations in respect to insanitary dwellings, and the other was to make representations in respect of allotments. Under the law as it existed, the inhabitant householder and the Parliamentary elector might make these representations; and yet it was proposed by the Government that the parish meeting should go to the trouble of giving to the County Council before it could acquire the right to do what could be done by the individual householder or elector.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought this Amendment raised an important matter of principle. The Opposition had always contended that local government by parish meeting was

  1531
  much more efficient in small districts than local government by Parish Council. When this awkward question was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax at an earlier stage, they were told that it would be more properly debated on this particular clause. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his Amendment to a Division, because the proposal of the Government struck at the whole principle of local government in small parishes. The number of the small parishes was immense. They had been told by the President of the Local Government Board that there were 1,400 parishes with a population less than 75, and as the limit of population went up to 200, the number of parishes excluded from the Bill, by this proposal of the Government, numbered many thousands. They should make all those parishes efficiently governed by the parish meeting.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, the proposal of the Government amounted to this— that four or five thousand parishes were to be deprived of the full advantage of the local administration provided by the Bill. They were to be in leading strings under the County Council—they were not to exercise those powers except with the permission of the County Council. Yet, the inhabitants of these small parishes, though few in number, might be just as intelligent, just as tenacious of their rights, and have just as much confidence in their administrative ability as the inhabitants of the larger parishes, and there was no reason whatever why, because they were few in number, they were to be deprived of the rights the Bill proposed to confer on the larger parishes.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he intended to press his Amendment to a Division. He had a personal grievance in the matter. When he was speaking the other day as to the necessity of having a fit place to keep the parish books, the President of the Local Government Board said that they had already given power to provide a parish chest. But that power was only given to the Parish Council, and in these 4,000 small parishes there would be no fit place to keep their books. The Government had also said that they had superseded the Churchwarden as a Civil officer. As a matter of fact, if the Amendment were not
  1532
  accepted the Churchwarden would remain a Civil officer just as much as before.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 168.—(Division List, No. 385.)
  Words added.
  Amendment proposed after the last Amendment to add the words—
  "(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 meeting.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, they should consider in this Amendment the position of parish charities. The parish charities should be administered by the parish meeting rather than by the Council just in the same way as they proposed that the parish meeting should have the power of appointing Overseers.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, in the case of the grouping of parishes there would be no grouping of charities. The charities of each separate parish would be preserved to itself. There was a choice of evils in relation to the matter, and they had chosen the least.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEmoved to add to the foregoing Amendment these words—
  "The chairman of the parish meeting and the Overseers of the parish shall be a body corporate by the name of the chairman and Overseers of the parish, and shall have perpetual succession and may hold land for the purpose of the parish without licence in mortmain."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he proposed to move an Amendment to the Amendment just proposed.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he would like to know why the chairman of a parish meeting should be regarded as a body corporate?
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the object of his Amendment was perfectly simple; but he was willing to listen to any suggestion with regard to it.
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the Government had no objection to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment proposed to be moved by the hon. Member for Hereford will come properly after that of the hon. Member for Somerset.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Very well, Sir.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE moved to insert, after the word "mortmain," in the last Amendment, the following words:—
  "And the legal interest in all property vested either in the Overseers or Churchwardens and Overseers shall vest in such body corporate."
  He said that without these words property would remain vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers, whom the Committee had already deprived of their civil capacity.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, he was sorry the hon. Member had put down this Amendment in this way, in manuscript, and without notice.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, it followed naturally upon the last Amendment; but he should have added, after "body corporate," the words—
  "Other than property connected with the affairs of the Church."
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be better to withdraw the Amendment, and move it again with that addition.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOK MR. RADCLIFFE COOK Emoved—
  After the word "mortmain," to insert the words,—"And the legal interest in all property vested either in the Overseers or Churchwardens and Overseers shall vest in such body corporate, other than property connected with the affairs of the Church."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, what he was about to point out to the hon. Member was that the Government accepted the Amendment in principle, but they had not had an opportunity of considering its wording as much as they would desire. It was for that reason he regretted that the hon. Member had put the Amendment
  1534
  before them now in manuscript. He would suggest to add to it such words as "subject to all trusts and liabilities affecting the same." But the Government would frame an Amendment so as to meet the view of the hon. Gentleman, as they believed it would be inconvenient to accept any words now that not been duly considered.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, this seemed a repetition of the question dealt with on Clause 13, and it would be hardly wise for the Committee to commit itself to the principle of the Amendment without having had an opportunity of carefully considering the point of view raised on that clause. Throughout that discussion Members on the Opposition side drew attention to the danger which the wording in the Bill laid charities and trusts open to which did not come under the designation of ecclesiastical charities, though in the minds of the founders it must have been present that they were to be administered by the Churchwardens. He hoped this point would not be lost sight of by the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER MR. H. H. FOWLER moved the following sub-section:—
  "(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 a District Council, shall apply, with the substitution of the parish meeting for the Parish Council."— (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE MR. H. HOBHOUSE moved to add the following to Sub-section 6:—
  "A rate levied for defraying the expenses of the parish meeting (including expenses under any of the adoptive Acts) shall not exceed 4d. in the £1 in any financial year."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he thought the question properly arose on Clause 10, and he would rather the hon. Gentleman would not move his Amendment now.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, on a point of Order, he would like to know whether they could on Report deal with a question of limitation of rating power?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be in Order to do so.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman wished the question deferred; but it seemed to him that the proper place to deal with it was now, as an addition to the sub-section.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, it was scarcely fair that the question of the expenditure of the parish meeting should be left for discussion on the Report stage. Clause 10 was passed, and it was impossible for them to reopen discussion upon it. He hoped they would be allowed to discuss the matter now.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he begged to move the words standing in his name. On Clause 10 there were a good many questions that could not be considered at all. What he submitted was that, as a limit of rating power had been laid down in the case of the larger parishes, in the same manner some limit ought to be prescribed for the smaller ones. On a comparison of their relative wants and circumstances, and particularly considering that very few of the smaller parishes had adopted, or were likely to adopt, the adoptive Acts, 4d. in the £1 would be a a suitable figure. It had been ascertained that the adoptive Acts had only been adopted in three out of thousands of small parishes, and 2d. was shown to be the highest rate. He thought the Committee would see that the objection as applied to the case of the smaller parishes was not a valid one. They did not wish to encourage expenditure of any considerable character, and, under those circumstances 4d. in the £1 would be a reasonable limit. The only question was whether the County Council should not have power, where it might be considered necessary, to raise the rate to 6d. In the great majority of the small parishes, however, 4d. would be a sufficiently high rate. The question was a very simple one, and he thought the limit ought to he fixed as he proposed.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to add the words—
  "A rate levied for defraying the expenses of the parish meeting (including expenses under any of the adoptive Acts) shall not exceed 4d. in the £1 in any financial year."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he would press the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment, as some such words were required. It would be convenient that there should be some limit in these cases. From what had already fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he thought he would be disposed to favourably consider the Amendment.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was in favour of a limit, and the only question he would raise was as to the desirability of prescribing a smaller rate than that which might be levied by the Parish Councils. If it was the general view of the House to accept 4d., he had not a word to say against it; but he thought it would be better to put both classes of parishes on the same level.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he would suggest that it would be an advantage to have uniformity. The Amendment might induce a parish which otherwise would be quite content with a, parish meeting to go in for a Council, because of the larger power of rating which it would possess, and he would be anxious to retain parish meetings in all these smaller parishes—those of, say, 100 and 200—as opposed to Parish Councils. The parish meeting would give a better sort of local government to such parishes, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to a system of uniformity.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he much preferred the views of the President of the Local Government Board to those of the right hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings). He could not understand the wisdom of imposing a limit which in the case of these smaller parishes would never really be wanted at all. These small parishes did not want the adoptive Acts, and were not likely to adopt them. For his part, he would be quite content to leave the matter in the hands of the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the right hon. Member for Bordesley had drawn a picture of the larger and smaller power of rating. He took the case of a parish of 199 inhabitants. They were not in a position to know whether the parish would proceed by parish meeting or whether it would prefer a Council. He hoped himself it would decide in favour of a meeting; because then there would be a saving of expense that would

  1537
  otherwise be incurred in respect of elections and appointments. But if a parish had 201 inhabitants it would then proceed by Parish Council. In his judgment, the smaller parish, minus a Parish Council, would be better off with a 4d. rate than the parish with a Council would be with a 6d. rate; in the former, as he had shown, would be saved all the expenses of elections, clerk, hire of offices, parish chest, and the rest. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed.
  MR. KNATCHBDLL-HUGESSENsaid, the financial effect of this measure would be to increase the rates, just as that had been the effect of the Local Government Act of 1888. The ratepayers would be ill able to bear this additional burden, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  MR. HARTLEYinvited the Committee to look at the practical effect of this Amendment. In a great number of these small parishes a rate of 1d. in the £1 would only amount to something like £3 or £4 a year, and this 4d. would produce only £15 or £20 a year. Therefore, it came to this: that this wonderful Bill, which was to do so much for these small parishes, really meant, when it came to be worked out, that each parish was to have the power to spend £15 or £20 a year. As they were going to make the limit 4d. they were going to make the Bill, as far as the small parishes were concerned, an absolute absurdity. Nobody could suppose that a parish covering five, six, or seven miles, with a small population, would be any better off than at present for all practical purposes for being able to spend £15 or £20 a year by this rate. As regarded the small parishes, the Bill would hardly do anything.
  MR. J. LOWTHERwas afraid his hon. Friend was holding out the prospect of 2s. 6d. or 3s. as the minimum, for if his argument was followed out to its logical conclusion it would mean that the limit proposed by the Bill ought to be far higher than at present. He could not agree with that. He still shared the original views of the President of the Local Government Board, and he very much regretted that the figure of a 1d. as the limit was taken out of the Bill. It was a great mistake for Parliament to hold out to small rural communities the idea of a large rate. Of course, they
  1538
  might be told there was no obligation on the ratepayers to go to the maximum amount, and he hoped they would not do so. He would point out that although in small parishes a 4d. rate might not represent a large sum, still that rate would be in addition to other existing rates. They knew that in the past rates had not had a tendency to diminish, and there was no reason to believe that the additional rates imposed by this Bill would diminish in the future. On the contrary, he was afraid they might look forward to a material steady growth of local taxation under all other heads; therefore, he hoped the Committee would not be led aside with the idea that only a 1d. would be required. They were now about to confer on rural communities the right to levy what was a material addition to local taxation, which was already grinding the heart out of the rural parishes of this country. He hoped the Government, before they came to the Report stage, would really consider this question by the light of the discussion that had taken place now, as also the discussion of some days back, without having altogether lost the original draft of the Bill. They now had practically a new Bill, differing very materially from the original draft. ["Question!"] It was exactly the question. The hon. Gentleman who called "Question!" was not taking an intelligent interest in their proceedings, for not only had he not got a copy of the Bill, but he had not even a copy of the Amendments in his hand.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was not now keeping to the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERmust call the attention of the Chairman to the fact that he was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman opposite, whom he acquitted of any intentional discourtesy. He should certainly feel it his duty, when interruptions emanated from gentlemen who were not following their proceedings, to protest against such conduct, and he should move to report Progress if he was interrupted again in order to call attention to such disorders. If they put a limit of 4d. or 6d. into this Bill without any corrective power whatever on the part of one of the superior Local Authorities, such as the District or County Council, as originally contemplated in this Bill, they were taking a very serious step in the direction

  1539
  of an almost indefinite enlargement of local burdens. The object the Government had originally in view was that in some instances it might be necessary, without regard to the fact as to whether a parish was large or small, that a larger expenditure should be incurred in some parishes than in others. He thought it was almost impossible, with any reason or justice, to lay down a hard-and-fast line unless it was fairly liberal, and that was, he dared say, what the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind when he assented to 6d., telling them that 1d. was enough without reference to a higher authority. There might be cases where a small parish might have occasion to incur an outlay which would represent the imposition of a somewhat large rate in the £1, but that ought not to be undertaken without the supervision of some higher authority than the Parish Council or parish meeting. The Bill originally introduced a very valuable safeguard—namely, that reference should be had to the District or County Council before the rate was allowed to exceed 1d. He trusted it was not too late even now to express a hope that the Government would, before they came to the Report stage, be prepared with some provision which would restore the safeguard to the ratepayer. When, for the first time, a small community was to be entitled to have certain powers and to be able to spread public money, it was desirable to have every safeguard which in justice could be inserted for the safety of the ratepayer. The Government entertained that view, and so, he knew, did the President of the Local Government Board, and he hoped that before the Report they should receive an assurance that this important question would be considered in all its bearings. He did not wish to curtail the parish within narrow fetters, but unquestionably it was desirable that some efficient check should be placed upon practically unlimited expenditure, especially in the case of these small rural parishes.
  SIR C. RUSSELLremarked that this discussion, from several points of view, was interesting and instructive. A little time ago hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were engaged in exalting the position of the parish meeting, and insisting that powers should be given it as large as those it was proposed to give to
  1540
  the Parish Council; but now, when it came to the question of furnishing them with the effective means of doing anything, then all these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—with the exception of the Member for Bordesley, who was consistent in this matter—showed that their object was to cut down these powers. Now the alternatives seemed to be at present these two: Whether there should be, as the Member for Bordesley suggested, uniformity in the rate-levying power of the parish meeting with that of the Parish Council; or whether the proposition of his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment should be adopted, fixing the limit of power of levying the rate in any financial year, including the expenses under any of the adoptive Acts, at 4d.? With the concurrence of his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, he had to suggest this as a compromise— namely, that the limit of the rate should be uniform—namely, 6d., but should include any expenses incurred in relation to the adoptive Acts.
  SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, the compromise was somewhat illusory, because in these small parishes it was quite certain the adoptive Acts would not be wanted at all. A small parish with a parish meeting and a 4d. rate would, therefore, be somewhat better off than a larger parish with a Parish Council and a 6d. rate. When this matter was discussed before he moved that the total rate should be 4d., and he should be consistent and support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Somerset. There was no advantage in inducing their country friends to try and spend more money than was necessary, and he believed that the small parishes under the system of the parish meeting would be better off than their neighbours.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEcertainly preferred his own proposal to that suggested by the Attorney General. There was no inconsistency in his attitude, for he voted for a 4d. limit before. In his district there was a great feeling against these high rates. He supposed as a matter of policy he ought to accept this compromise. It was not a Party question, and if he pressed it to a Division his proposal would be negatived; therefore, from that point of view, and not because

  1541
  the Government proposal was better than his own, he would accept the compromise.
  MR. W. LONGobserved that before this Debate concluded he should like to say one word with reference to the remarks of the Attorney General. This was another instance of the complications which arose from the interchange of right hon. Gentlemen who were occasionally sent to speak on behalf of the Government. The Attorney General, who was not present during the earlier Debates in Committee, but who was represented by the Solicitor General, had challenged the Opposition with being inconsistent. Their attitude was entirely the reverse. They were actually consistent in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset, the position they took up now being exactly the position they took up before. If the hon. Member went to a Division he should certainly support him.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: Do I understand that the Government will propose that as an Amendment?
  SIR C. RUSSELLproposed to amend the proposed Amendment by leaving out "4d.," and inserting in its place "6d."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "4d.," and insert " 6d."—(The Attorney General.)
  Question put, "That '4d.' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 140.—(Division List, No. 386.)
  Word "sixpence" inserted.
  Words, as amended, added.
  SIR R. PAGETmoved, in line 29, to strike out "additional," and insert "or other."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to add the words—
  "(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 hand's and seals of the chairman presiding at the meeting and two other parochial electors present at the meeting."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHpresumed that this sub-section related, among other matters, to the mode in which the consent of the Parish Council to order an alteration of the boundaries might be given. It would be well they should know whether there was any provision in the existing law for orders being laid before the Council for a sufficient time before the statutory consent was given. Of course, it was obvious that the consent might depend upon the precise terms of the order. There might be provision in the Act of 1888, and he thought the point might be raised on Part 4 of this Bill.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he was under the impression that, at the instance of the hon. Member for Thirsk (Mr. J. G. Lawson) an undertaking had been given that it would be provided that 14 days should be allowed. He had not the exact terms of the undertaking by him, but he would promise that it should be adhered to.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHwas understood to say the question was one of considerable importance.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked, were they to understand that the chairman of the parish meeting was to have the power to consent on its behalf?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Amendment provided that any act of the parish meeting might be signified by the chairman and two electors, a seal being used when it might be required.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Will that be a Corporate Seal?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We do not propose to give to give the parish meeting a Corporate Seal.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he thought the point should be considered.
  MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he understood that they were deciding that the parish meeting was to have a seal.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Amendment states—
  "Under the hands and seals of the chairman presiding at the meeting, and two other parochial electors present at the meeting."
  MR. J. H. JOHNSTONEsaid, he raised this question before, and he was glad to find the position now taken up by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he wished, in connection with Sub-section 6—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order! Subsection 6 has been agreed to. We are past it.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 19 (Election and qualification of Guardians).
  MR. LONG: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of making an appeal to the Government, which I hope they will consider favourably. I do not wish to postpone the work before the Committee or to interfere with its rapid despatch. On the contrary, I venture to say that the suggestion I am about to make is one which, if adopted, will facilitate the passage of the Bill. In order to make myself in Order, I will move to postpone Clause 19. The 18 clauses of the measure with which we have now dealt concern Parish Councils and parish meetings. We now come to a clause dealing with he Poor Law Guardians, and then to a variety of clauses, 25 or 26 in number, which are essential to the proper carrying out of the machinery of the Parochial Councils and parish meetings. Therefore, on the ground of convenience alone, it would be desirable if the Government could see their way to agree to the Motion which I make, so that the clauses referring to the Poor Law and the District Councils should be postponed in order that we may put into one part of the Bill all the clauses referring to Parochial Councils. The adoption of such a course would be an advantage to those who would have to administer the Act. There is one argument that must have weight on both sides of the House. No one will deny that the Poor Law is one of the most important laws in the country, and that its successful and wise application is essential to the happiness and the prosperity of the people, especially of the wage-earning classes. Some hon. Gentlemen have said that there is nothing in the measure which affects the administration of the Poor Law, and that it only alters the machinery by which the Poor Law Guardians are to be elected. If that were so, hon. Gentlemen would not be so anxious as they are that this part of the Bill should pass.
  1544
  They support the Bill because they believe that in the administration of the Poor Law hitherto there has not been sufficient consideration given to the needs and requirements of the people who have received Poor Law relief, and they want to temper the Boards of Guardians by putting on them a larger representation of the working-class element. Well, Sir, I do not want to raise anew the controversy of yesterday with regard to Public Business, but I think that anybody will admit that in a House which Division after Division has shown does not consist of 300 Members, which is not half its full strength, it is not fit for the consideration of so important and grave a question as that involved in Clause 19. What is the alternative I submit? It is that the Government should complete that part of the Bill which deals with Parish Councils —that they should complete it in the first part—before going into the question of the Poor Law and District Councils. I have already pointed out the convenience of this course; and I would venture to say that if the Government adopt the course which I suggest, it would be impossible for them to say that it would in any way involve the loss of this part of the Bill. My suggestion can in no way be regarded or fairly described as an obstructive one. It is made in good faith and with perfect loyalty, believing that its adoption would not only help to make the Bill better, but that it would render the progress of the Bill more easy, rapid, and smooth than it is otherwise likely to be. I formally move " That the consideration of Clause 19 be postponed."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. W. Long.)
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not take exception to the tone and manner in which the hon. Member has made this very important suggestion. I quite recognise that he has made it in the spirit which he professes, and without any motives of obstruction or opposition to the proposals of the Government. But we have to look at the Bill as a whole, and, whereas it is quite true that we have now reached the conclusion of that part of the Bill which deals exclusively with Parish Councils, the Committee will re-

  1545
  collect that the Government have always, from the very inception of the Bill, attached equal or even greater importance to the institution of District Councils. A great deal of irritation, or rather of opposition, to this part of the Bill has arisen from the use of the phrases "Poor Law clauses" and "Poor Law administration." The Government have been charged—at any rate in the Press, if not in the House—with proposing to turn the Poor Law topsyturvy and upside down. When the proper time comes I shall be able to show that that is not only not our intention, but that it is not our proposal. The Government recognise the fundamental principle on which the Poor Law administration is based, and they have no wish to weaken the force of that wise administration. All that we are doing in the Bill is this: In constituting District Councils mainly for sanitary and local purposes, we find an organisation already in existence called the Rural Sanitary Authority. That organisation is composed of the gentlemen who administer the Poor Law at the present time. We deem it unwise, unnecessary, and certainly wasteful, to set up two conflicting organisations in the same district. We think the organisation should be one; and we see no reason why the same body which now administers the Poor Law should not also continue to administer the Poor Law and the rural sanitary affairs of the district. But we are confronted with a difficulty, which is not, however, a great one, nor one which need require elaborate discussion. We find that that body has a peculiar constitution of its own—that it is elected by a plural vote and without the ballot, and we consider that that is an inconsistent mode of constituting an elective body. I shall be prepared at the proper time to show that it is not working altogether satisfactorily, and that, in some points, it is open to censure. But, what was a more important matter, we find that that body includes a number of gentlemen who are ex officio members, who have no electoral authority or responsibility, and we propose to discontinue the services of those gentlemen. These are the only two proposals in the Bill which really affect the Poor Law, and when they come to be worked out I shall do my best to convince the Committee that there is no element to weaken the
  1546
  Poor Law in those proposals. If the abolition of the principle on which the Poor Law rests were proposed, the hon. Gentleman's argument would be a sound one, and such a proposal would be out of place in such a Bill as this. It may be necessary to come to Parliament for further legislation; but that is a matter to be dealt with by itself. The hon. Member himself was a party to the bringing in of a Bill five years ago which dealt with District Councils, but that Bill was dropped. I myself pressed the then President of the Local Government Board and the First Lord of the Treasury to bring it in the next year. I pronounce no censure on them for not having done so, because the causes were beyond their control. From all I can hear, from both sides of the House, there is no serious objection to the scheme which the Government propose for improving the constitution of Urban Councils, which need improvement as well as Rural Councils, and as to the improvement of the constitution of the Rural Sanitary Authorities, the one question is whether we are to abolish the ex officio Guardians and introduce a new mode of election. That, I admit, is controversial to a very great extent; but beyond that I do not think there are many other controversial matters in the Bill. It is impossible to postpone what is practically Part 2 to the end of the Bill, because all the constructive and administrative clauses are based upon both Parish and District Councils, and we would have to introduce a new Bill altogether. It would be impossible to go on with the Bill without re-drawing the clauses; and I do not think any time would be saved by adopting the procedure proposed by the hon. Member. No one feels more than I do the strain that is imposed upon the House, but the attendance is not worse than it was three weeks ago. As I have said, I appreciate the spirit in which the proposal is made. I am aware that we have this discussion before us; but it need not arouse heat, and I submit that the simplest, safest, and best course is to go on with the Bill.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I believe, Sir, Members on this side of the House at least will think the right hon. Gentleman has minimised too much the change which is proposed in the Bill. His whole argu-

  1547
  ment is that there is only one controversial point which touches these clauses, and that is the constitution of the Poor Law Guardians, and that that matter might be dealt with during the course of the discussions without turning too much aside from the general track of the Bill. We consider that the proposed change in the constitution of the Poor Law Guardians is an immense one, which cannot but affect the general administration of the Poor Law. That view is also held by hon. Members opposite, for otherwise they would not attach the great importance to the change which it is plain they do attach to it, and for which they almost seem to be willing to risk the whole Bill. The right hon. Gentleman thinks this is a comparatively easy matter to deal with shortly, while hon. Members on this side consider it an extremely difficult one, which must take up a considerable time. Surely, it is rather for the right hon. Gentleman to attempt to smooth the passage of the Bill by giving way to us on this matter, to which we attach so much more importance than the right hon. Gentleman does? The Prime Minister will see, I hope, by the whole tone of the speech of my hon. Friend and by his proposal, how unjust it would be to assume that this discussion is intended to wreck the Bill. The proposal would do more than any other proposal made during the course of the discussion to promote the passing of the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman's argument is not conclusive against its adoption. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the matter must be disposed of, because, in the subsequent clauses, the existence of the District Councils and other bodies has been assumed. In the clauses already dealt with it has been assumed that District Councils would be created, and, so far as I can judge, the future clauses can be dealt with on precisely the same assumption. I believe the right hon. Gentleman feels that the adoption of the proposal would appear to be a sign of weakness on the part of the Government. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put that idea entirely aside. Looking to the immense inconvenience to which the whole House has been put, the right hon. Gentleman might surely make some reasonable concessions which would ease the progress, and facilitate the passing,
  1548
  of the Bill. It is to be regretted that the Government oppose a non possumus to this reasonable proposal.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no difficulty on this side of the House in admitting that the proposal which has been made, and which has been submitted in a temper and in a manner totally unobjectionable, as well as by a gentleman competent by his intelligence and ability, is an important one. I hope I may say that the speech in which my right hon. Friend has replied to this proposal was a speech which cast no imputations on anyone. My right hon. Friend who has just sat down says we must admit that it is a reasonable proposal. That would be a very serious admission indeed. If we were to begin with admitting that the proposal was justified by practical considerations and then proceed to resist it, our action would be anomalous and unwarrantable. No, Sir, I do not hesitate to say that we cannot take that view. I listened to the hon. Member who made this proposal for the first few moments with some hope that he would be able to offer us something in the nature of an inducement connected with the practical progress of the Bill which would enable us to lend an ear to his proposal, but I am bound to say I was entirely disappointed. There are two questions on which the discussion has mainly turned. The hon. Member said the House is not at present of a representative character, and he expressed the hope that by postponing this clause until the remaining clauses have been completed we shall embark on the consideration of Clause 19 when the House is of a more representative character than at present. If the Government could share that expectation, I admit that it would be an important, legitimate, and very practical consideration, and that it would be our duty to attach great weight to it. But it is the reverse of our expectations. Our apprehensions, on the contrary, are that, should the House now spend the time remaining before Christmas upon the remaining constructive clauses of the Bill, and then come finally to the clause which it is proposed to postpones, we should come to the discussion of that clause, which it is admitted is one of the most important parts of the Bill, with augmented heat and diminished attendance. With regard to the constructive

  1549
  question, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Fowler) has shown that there would be a difficulty if this clause was omitted in proceeding with the intermediate clauses without a re-construction of the Bill. We must look at this matter for a moment from our point of view. The point of view of the Government is that the practical difficulties of proceeding with the later clauses would not be diminished, but augmented, and at the same time we should find the Members attending the House decreasing. Reference has been made to the District Councils in the clause we have already passed. That, after all, is no very large portion of the question, involving hardly anything more than the name of the District Councils. But we come to the change which it is proposed to make in regard to the Sanitary Authority and to the construction of the elected and elective body. The whole of those questions are embodied and embedded in the later clauses of the Bill, and this makes it impracticable to proceed with them until we have dealt with the intermediate portion in the first instance. It is on these grounds alone that we are unable to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was sorry to hear the speeches delivered by the two right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He had approached the Bill in a spirit of sincere friendship, and he would appeal to all who had observed the course he had taken during these discussions to confirm the accuracy of that statement. He had in the largest number of Divisions, apart from those which took place on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, felt it to be his duty to support Her Majesty's Government. He had given them an ungrudging support in all their proposals. He accepted the Bill as a thoroughly democratic measure, and a powerful and efficient instrument in what he might call the regeneration of the rural districts. In view of the great importance of the Bill, and of the work still before the Committee, he thought it well worthy the consideration of his right hon. Friends whether they should not even now review the position they had taken up with respect to the administration of the Poor Law. That was a subject about which there was great jealousy amongst the people of the
  1550
  country. He did not say that the administration of the Poor Law at the present time was perfect; indeed, he admitted the necessity of large reforms in that administration. He was not one who would come there to defend ex officio Guardians or plural voting; but upon the administration of the Poor Law depended most intimately the condition of the rural and the whole industrial population of the country. The administration of the Poor Law depended on the character of those who were called upon to administer it. In the course of the Bill through the House they had discussions almost of a passionate character upon the change of the personnel of the administrative bodies in the parishes who were interested in parochial trusts. The proposal to change the administration from the Vicar and Churchwardens to persons elected by the Parish Council had been the cause of vehement opposition on the one side and vehement support on the other, because it was realised how much the administration of the parochial charities depended upon the personnel of the admistrators, quite apart from the trusts. In the same way it could scarcely be denied that in the administration of the Poor Law there was the utmost elasticity. They saw it now in passing from one Union in the country to another Union. They saw how much depended on the character of the administrative body and the close effect of the Poor Law on the character of the population of the country. They looked on any proposal to alter the administrative body dealing with the Poor Law with the greatest jealousy. But the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board —who was supported most strongly by the Prime Minister—said it was impossible to alter the Bill by omitting from it clauses bearing on the administration of the Poor Law without re-constructing the measure altogether. It was that position which he wished to challenge.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that was not what he had said. The hon. Member opposite had said—"Go on now and complete your Bill, completing your organisation of parish government and leaving out everything relating to Urban or District Councils." He (Mr. Fowler) said that if now they were to take the

  1551
  District Councils out of the Bill, the Bill would have to be withdrawn in order to frame efficiently the constructive machinery.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he admitted as much as that; but the Motion before the Committee was to postpone this particular clause, and what he wished to call attention to was that this particular clause could be postponed and that they might go on with the other clauses creating District Councils, keeping the Guardians alive simply for the purpose of administering the Poor Law. They had now a special body charged with the administration of the Education Act quite apart from all other organisations of the country, and that it was intended to keep alive as a separate organisation. They might have their District Boards side by side with the Boards of Guardians, the latter being confined strictly to Poor Law work and the former dealing with sanitary and all other work apart from Poor Law work on which the right hon. Gentleman had laid stress. That would not be open to practical objection. It would leave their Bill practically untouched, involving nothing more than the cutting out of this particular clause. They might have their District Council Board elected on the most popular franchise. His right hon. Friend knew—he had hinted at it—that they would have to deal as a whole with the Poor Law. There was a Royal Commission sitting on one branch of the question. He was not sure it was going to be very effective; but that was not the only branch of the question, and they would probably have constituted a Royal Commission appointed to examine into the Poor Law as a whole. He thought the proposal submitted should be considered in the interests of the Bill itself. The clause they were now asked to enter upon was one which must occupy a considerable amount of time, for it affected a subject which excited deep and serious feelings not only among Members of the House, but among the people out-of-doors, not from any jealousy of popular institutions, but from a dread that there might come upon them something of the evils they had escaped in 1835. Why should the right hon. Gentleman be reluctant to make a change for the convenience of the House which would not interfere with the complete success of the Bill, except in the one
  1552
  particular of reserving the administration of the Poor Law as it was now until the whole question could be dealt with? It was not a proposal to stop the creation of District Councils or the general re-organisation of the whole government of the country. In the interest of the nation at large and of the Bill in particular, he pressed the suggestion which had been made on the re-consideration of the Government.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was deserving of most serious attention. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman's position it was very different from that of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Long).
  MR. W. LONGsaid, it was possible that what he had said had not clearly conveyed his meaning. He had moved the postponement of this clause, which was practically the course the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin recommended. He had suggested that from the point of view of the Government; they should regard the Poor Law and District Council clauses as connected together. But what he desired, at the moment, was the postponement of Clause 19, and that he had moved.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the Government postponed Clause 19 they must postpone all the others bearing upon District Councils. Clause 19 was inextricably bound up with District Councils. The plan of the Government was that the present Boards of Guardians should be merged into or amalgamated with District Councils, and that they should be one and the same body. To postpone the District Council clauses was, in point of fact, to make it impossible to proceed with the subsequent clauses. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) suggested that they should create District Councils as distinct bodies from the Poor Law Guardians. But that the Government did not propose to do. It would be contrary to the whole idea of the scheme of the Government, and they would be of the same opinion even if the Guardians were a well constituted body. But they were strongly of opinion that there were great defects in the Boards of Guardians, and that was an additional reason why, when constituting a new body for local government,

  1553
  they should, at the same time, amend the constitution of what was the Board of Guardians, and what would be the District Council. The only other way in which the Government could have proceeded would have been by adopting for the District Councils the constitution of the Poor Law Guardians. But that was out of the question. Neither the House nor the country would tolerate it for a moment. What would become of Clause 23 if Clause 19 were struck out? All through the latter part of the Bill the District Councils were identified with the Boards of Guardians. Hon. Gentlemen, therefore, would see that the process of excision was not so easy as his right hon. Friend seemed to think. All of these clauses were naturally founded on the assumption that District Councils were to be created and identified with Boards of Guardians. He protested against the assumption that the clauses in the Bill involved a fundamental change in the Poor Law. The Bill simply affected those who administered that law —it reconstituted the trustees, leaving the trust untouched—and that being so, the Government could not accept the Amendment for postponing the clause.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he had no reason whatever to regret his constant attendance upon this Bill, and still less to-night, because it had given him cause to notice the inconstant action of the Government on the question of the amalgamation of the Poor Law and the District Councils with the general question of local government. They had now reached the first clause of the Poor Law portion of the Bill, and he was in a position to point out that in his opinion this was the clause and the one clause only dealing with the matter, and his opinion on this subject was supported by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He regretted very much the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, because when the right hon. Gentleman left the House just now he had just made a speech in which he said the 19th clause could not be postponed for the reason that it was inextricably bound up with the whole scheme of the Bill, and that to postpone this clause would render con-
  1554
  fusion in the Bill. That was not the opinion of the President of the Local Government Board at the commencement of the Committee stage of this Bill. When his hon. Friend the Member for Lynn Regis (Mr. Gibson Bowles) moved an Instruction that the Bill should be divided into two parts, and the Poor Law portion brought in as one Bill, and the Local Government portion dealt with in another Bill, what did the President of the Local Government Board say? The right hon. Gentleman said the separate Bill would be formed of one clause, a clause of 21 lines altogether, proposing to enact there should be no ex officio Guardians, the constituencies should have no plural vote, and that there should be no property qualification for Guardians. How did that agree with what was said a few minutes ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this clause could not be postponed, as it was so bound up with the rest of the Bill, and to comply with the Motion of the hon. Member would wreck the scheme of the Government, whereas the right hon. Gentleman's colleague said it was only one clause that dealt with the matter of the Poor Law. This attempt to bring in such a clause in the middle of a Bill for local government was absolutely unprecedented in the legislation of this country. There were the Municipal Corporations Acts which had been held up as models of legislative wisdom; those Acts established local government throughout the boroughs of England, but did they deal with the Poor Law question? On the contrary, they left the Guardians just as they found them. Again in 1875 the Public Health Act, which dealt with local government in England and Wales, to a great extent established Urban and Rural Sanitary Authorities, but was there one word incorporating the question of the Poor Law with the question of local government? He thought it would be found that that Bill left the Guardians exactly as they found them. Then they were told that the matter of the District Councils was so bound up with the whole Bill that it would be impossible to separate that matter. It was represented that his hon. Friend desired the postponement of the whole of Part 2 of the Bill; but as he understood it, his hon. Friend's Motion

  1555
  was limited to the postponement of Clause 19.
  MR. STOREYbegged the hon. Member's pardon for interrupting him, but he understood the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. W. Long) to ask for the postponement of all the clauses relating to the Poor Law and District Councils.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the Motion before the Committee was simply that Clause 19 should be postponed.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that as that was the case he would confine himself to that particular point, but he was tempted to stray so far as to refer to District Councils, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, as he understood it, said Clause 19 could not be postponed because District Councils had been so often referred to in the clauses they had already passed in the Bill. It must be obvious to the Committee there was no connection between pauperism and sanitation, though it was quite true the same body dealt with both. The reason for that was that Urban Sanitary Authorities 'were instituted and sanitary powers were given to some authority in the district. The Boards of Guardians were the only constituted and existing authorities to whom they could possibly be given, and from that had arisen inextricable confusion well-known to the right hon. Gentleman himself. The poor rate and the number of matters thrown upon the poor rate were subjects which no President of the Local Government Board could view with any satisfaction, and one would desire that matters connected with the poor rate should be separated from other matters of local government. The sanitary areas for such matters as they were dealing with in this Bill were not necessarily good areas for dealing with the matter of the Poor Law. For his part, he held a strong view upon Poor Law administration.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Motion before the Committee, and entering upon a matter it is not competent for him to deal with on this Motion.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he was seeking to show the result of postponing the clause would be to keep
  1556
  distinct two matters that ought to be kept separate. He thought they should not proceed to the consideration of Poor Law matters from sanitary matters, then go back to sanitary matters; that it would be far better to deal with the whole question of local government as regarded sanitary matters, and then, if they had time, take up the Poor Law question. It had also been said that to carry out the Motion of his hon. Friend would require that the Bill should be recast, but large portions of the Bill had been already recast. Speaking as a County Member, and as one who represented more parishes than any other man in the House, his object and desire was that the scheme of parish government should be reformed, and carried very much on the lines of the first and latter parts of the Bill. He wanted something to be saved from the wreck to which the Government were apparently steering this desirable measure; and his proposal was that Clause 19, the Jonah which had brought all the storm, should be thrown overboard for a time. He had no objection, if time permitted, to its being brought up again, but they ought not to wreck a valuable Bill by overloading it with what was not connected with its substance. Where did they stand? They were approaching Christmas, and yesterday there were 561 Amendments standing on the Paper, 68 of which referred to this one clause, Clause 19. By postponing the clause, they could proceed at once to what was useful and valuable, and upon which they were all agreed, and, therefore, why should the Government insist upon going on with what was likely to bring the whole Bill to a total wreck? He hoped the suggestion of his hon. Friend would be accepted; and that having considered the fundamental part of the Bill dealing with local and parish government they might, after reasonable opportunity for recuperation, plunge into the Poor Law question, with a full knowledge of what they were doing and with faculties ready for the strain.
  Sir G. Osborne Morganrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, they had to remember they appeared in the House not only on their own account, but on account of their constituents, and he had to repeat to the Committee that all the leading men in his constituency were bitterly, stubbornly, and sternly opposed to this 19th clause, and, so far as he knew, their opinion was shared by the great majority of those whom he represented. [Cries of "No!"] He repeated, the majority of those whom he represented, and therefore it became his duty to lift up his voice so far as he might, and warn the Government it would be his duty, as that of other hon. Members sitting on that side of the House, to oppose the clause with the most strenuous resistance in their power at every stage and in every manner the Rules of the House permitted. That was clearly their duty according to the mandate whereby they held their seats in that House. He could assure the Committee his constituents desired that the question of the appointment of Poor Law Guardians should be postponed until the whole question of Poor Law administration could be taken up as a whole. So far as he could ascertain no complaints were made against the Guardians, and throughout his constituency he had reason to believe the prevailing opinion was that the Guardians worked well. They did not say that the constitution of the Poor Law Guardians might or might not be capable of improvement, but so far as he knew the county he represented, and the locality in which he was bred and born, he could say he never heard any complaint against the Poor Law Guardians. He had canvassed for three contested elections, and had heard every subject under the sun discussed, so far as regarded agricultural matters and interests, but he never heard the Poor Law Guardians complained of it; was always one of the few subjects about which every one seemed content. [Cries of "Question!"] It was the question; this Clause 19 related to Poor Law Guardians, and nothing else; they desired that this clause should be postponed, and he was giving reasons why he thought it should be postponed, and he disputed the title of the hon. Gentleman to interrupt him by any ejaculation of " Question!" On behalf of his constituents he must contest strongly the dictum of the
  1558
  right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that this clause changed the trustees only, and not the trust, as if they could possibly change the trustees without altering the character of the trust, such a thing was impossible, the two things being bound up together; if they changed the trustees they must alter the condition of the trust, as the two things went together. It was said if they omitted or postponed this clause as proposed by his hon. Friend they would alter the constitution of the District Councils. That they strenuously denied. They might constitute a District Council for every administrative purpose, but there was no necessity to incorporate with it the constitution of the Poor Law Guardian. Then as regarded the sub-stance of the clause, they entirely denied, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister in charge of the Bill, that if they omitted this clause it would lead to a revolution of the clauses they had already passed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) showed conclusively they might pass all the other clauses and omit this one question about the constitution of the Poor Law Guardians. The argument about the subsequent clauses being bound up with this was nothing more nor less than a pretext for a special purpose. Then they were told that if this was dropped it would be absolutely lost. The late Government had to drop some portion of its Local Government Bill of 1888, but had they remained in power two or three years longer they would have had to propose a measure something on the same principle as this; it did not mean that the subject once dropped was for ever lost. But suppose it did wait, what harm would be done? His constituents considered this was a subject that would well bear waiting; that there was no absolute necessity to change that which had done well for so many years, and they most emphatically objected to this being brought on in haste. He earnestly hoped that his hon. Friend would divide upon it. Of all the Amendments that had been proposed, this was about the most important, and he hoped that his hon. Friend who had moved it with so much authority, weight, and spirit would persist in it. [Cries of "Divide!"] They would certainly divide upon it, though probably hon.

  1559
  Members opposite were in larger numbers than they were because their County Members at this period of the year were engaged in their own localities.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  Mr. Billson rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he was supporting the argument that they should divide, and he had stated the reasons why they should divide, though probably the number of Members opposite exceeded their own.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is now certainly out of Order.
  MR. STOREYsaid, before the Division was taken he wished to say just one word. It was very evident the more time they took on the discussion of the question whether they should discuss the clause the less time they would have to discuss the clause itself; therefore he would not occupy the time of the Committee for more than a minute or two. He was glad the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Long) was in his place, because in his absence a number of hon. Gentlemen behind him seemed to have forgotten—
  MR. W. LONG: I have only been away for a few minutes.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he was not complaining of the absence of the hon. Gentleman who had given such constant attendance during the progress of the Bill. An hon. Friend who had just come in from dining asked," What is the good of all this?" The good of it was this: that he was going to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Long). The hon. Member's appeal was that they should drop this clause; the President of the Local Government Board had replied that the Government intended to go on with it, and since he had been out during the interval, he had ascertained what would be the effect of the proposal of the hon. Member on the Bill. If it were carried out, Clauses 19, 22,23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 must be postponed. That affected nine clauses, and then serious structural changes must be
  1560
  made in Clauses 20, 30, 33, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 62, 63, 64, and 66. He would put it to the hon. Gentleman if, in his conduct of any important Bill when he was in the Local Government Board Office, they had made such a proposal as that he would not have thought them extremely unreasonable; and if that were so, and the Government having given their answer, might he not appeal to him to induce his less responsible friends behind him to put an end to this discussion?
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he could not resist the appeal made to him, and he must Bay he did draw a very favourable comparison between the attitude and tone of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who had done his best to facilitate the passage of the Bill, and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had been, he presumed, somewhere about the premises, but who had not taken part, in the Debates except to intervene to-night, and who had produced the first note of discord that had been sounded. He was quite prepared to consider and regard any fair suggestion made by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) or anyone else who desired to make this Bill a satisfactory measure, but he was not going to be put down by any threats; and he warned right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they attempted to force them by immature Motions for Closure, or in any way to prevent their saying what they wished, hon. Gentlemen opposite might succeed in annoying them, but they would not succed in facilitating or hastening the passage of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) made a distinct appeal to him, and, in responding, he was anxious to say a word further in consequence of the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told the Committee there was no intention to interfere with the administration of the Poor Law, and who made the most astounding statement that they were going to alter the trustees, but that the Local Government Board would be left in full control of the administration of the Poor Law. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would not support that. From the last Returns of the Local Government Board they found that the proportion of the admin-

  1561
  stration of the outdoor relief in Wales stood at 80 per cent of the whole; whereas in the Metropolis the proportion of outdoor relief was only at 18 per cent.; and if, in the face of figures like that, anyone would assert, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer asserted, the Local Government Board had full control, all he could say was that he had more respect for such a person's pluck than for his sagacity or common sense. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) said the Government had made their reply, and that to drop this clause involved a reconstruction. The proposal he had made was not the dropping of the clauses, not the postponement to another Session—whenever that period of Parliamentary time might arise—but that the place they held in the Bill should be altered and the clauses re-numbered. It was a more important proposal than some hon. Gentlemen appeared to realise, as they had not taken the trouble to consider the magnitude of the question. Whatever might be the effect of other parts of the Bill, the effect of the change they were making by this clause would be more far-reaching and more important than any other change in local government in recent years. When he reminded the Committee that the amount expended on the administration of the Poor Law reached nearly £9,000,000, £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 of which went in relief of the poor in and out of the workhouse, they would admit this clause involved grave and serious considerations. At least hon. Gentlemen opposite would give them credit for the honesty of their intentions, and he might say that in the Debate which only commenced at half-past 7, the Prime Minister and the President of the Local Government Board had spoken.
  SIR C. RUSSELL: There have been two hours.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, if there had been two hours the Attorney General seemed to forget the amount of time deducted for dinner. He would venture to repeat they were entitled to ask hon. Gentlemen, whether they agreed or disagreed with them, to think they were actuated by a real desire to reform, and that any proposal made by the Committee should be considered in a reasonable spirit and
  1562
  with a view to passing a good measure of reform. He admitted the appeal made to him was one that demanded respectful consideration on their side of the House; but as he considered the matter was one of very great importance, he thought they ought to divide upon it, and he would, therefore, ask his hon. Friends to at once take the sense of the Committee upon it.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 102.—(Division List, No. 387.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments to Clause 19 are out of Order.
  These were—
  Mr. Ambrose,—
  Page 12, line 28, leave out from second "the," to end of Clause, and add "Boards of Guardians now constituting the Rural Sanitary Authorities for several districts for which they are the Guardians shall cease to be the Rural Sanitary Authority for such districts."
  Mr. Heneage,—
  Page 12, line 29, after "Guardians," insert " shall cease to exist and all their duties shall be transferred to the County Councils and District Councils as hereafter provided by this Act."
  MR. AMBROSE: My Amendment—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is out of Order; the Amendment not only endeavours to negative the clause, but it sets up an alternative scheme. Mr. Stanley Leighton.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, that his Amendment was connected with one of those obsolete matters which seem to have been forgotten by the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this Bill-Though he had put the Amendment on the Paper, it might not be the best way of dealing with these old incorporations to which he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman; but he raised the question in order that they might in some way or other meet the difficulty. He lived in an incorporation—a Poor Law incorporation — which was formed 100 years ago under the 31st Geo. III., c. 34, a private and local Act of Parliament. That incorporation had existed

  1563
  up to the present time, and they had no ex officio member except the Mayor. All the directors of the incorporation were elected by the Vestries, and they were not only elected by the Vestries, but afterwards had to go through the operation of co-optation; three persons were elected by every one of the Vestries of the parishes within the incorporation, whose names were sent in, and the directors selected one. Altogether it was not a bad arrangement; and they had exactly the sort of persons to deal with the difficult matters of the Poor Law which they would desire to have. They had persons of all classes meeting together, and all of them had behind them the representative principle. The incorporation included 15 parishes, having 27,000 inhabitants, and was spread over portions of the Counties of Salop, Denbigh, and Montgomery— its rateable value being £170,000. How was that Corporation to be dealt with under this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman had left it like an island in the midst of the areas which he had created. What was to happen after this Bill passed in the incorporation in which he lived? It did not seem to have occured to the right hon. Gentleman it was necessary to deal with these details, and yet the Bill was full of these particular details. How many there were of these incorporations in the country he was not quite sure, but according to the last Return he believed there were 9 or 10; but, at all events, from the example he had pointed out they ought not to be overlooked. It might be the proper way to deal with them by eliminating them from the Bill, as was the case now; but then, at all events, that part of the country in which he lived the Bill would hardly have any operation at all. He saw nothing in the Bill to dissolve these incorporations; he knew they might be dissolved by the operation of certain law, but they had not been dissolved, and still remained, and he should like to ask the President of the Local Government Board or the Attorney General how it was intended to deal with the matter? He would also like to point out that the right hon. Gentleman would find the method of election provided for in some of these incorporations was a better method of electing Guardians than that established by the Bill.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 12, line 29, after the word " Guardians," to insert the words, " and to incorporations formed under the Act of the 22nd year of Geo. III., c. 83, or under any local Act."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, he might observe that the Act to which the Amendment referred had been repealed so far back as 1871. The hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying that, so far as there were incorporations which existed and were not dissolved, they ought to be provided for in this Bill. The Government were advised they were provided for, and the Committee would see that the clause as it stood said—
  "As from the appointed day the following provisions shall apply to Boards of Guardians."
  As the hon. Member was aware, the 16th section of the Interpretation Act provided that the expression "Poor Law Board of Guardians" meant a Board of Guardians elected under the Poor Law Amendment Act, and should include Boards of Guardians or other bodies of persons performing any Act under the Poor Law Amendment Act. Those words met the case of the Amendment, and, therefore, the Amendment was unnecessary.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid that, though the hon. and learned Gentleman stood at the height of his profession, he ventured to think he did not understand the intricacies of the Poor Law, and he would, with the permission of the Committee, read him some extracts from a letter he had received from the Clerk of the Oxford Poor Law Incorporation. This was one of those many subjects the right hon. Gentleman would find, before he closed Part II. of his Bill, he had raised which presented many obstacles— [Cries of "Order!"] It was not out of Order; they had better ask the Chairman if he was out of Order. This was a matter of extreme importance—perhaps not to the whole Committee, but to a certain number of persons who were deeply interested in the question—and if he was interrupted he should take the course of moving to report Progress. The Clerk of the Oxford Incorporation, speaking of that Incorporation, said—

  1565
  "The Board is one of the few in the country which are not formed under the general law applicable to Unions, the reason being the existence in Oxford of the University, which has large and distinct interests in all local matters. Under its local and amending Acts the incorporation is composed of 35 Guardians as follows:— 11 Parish Guardians, i, e., one elected by each of the following parishes."
  He need not trouble the Committee by reading the names of the parishes.
  "Thirteen elected by the statutory parish of the University of Oxford, of whom the Vice Chancellor is one, and 11 City Guardians— namely, 10 chosen from the Aldermen of the City and the Mayor of Oxford. The qualifications of the Guardians are—for the Parish Guardians the payment of rates in the parish represented; for a University Guardian, being a graduate of the University, and for the City Guardians, holding the offices mentioned."
  These were arrangements not hastily to be put aside with a wave of the hand of the Attorney General.
  "The effect of the Bill upon the Oxford Incorporation, bearing in mind that the local and amending Acts are thereby totally repealed, is that under Clause 19 the present University and City Guardians disappear altogether, or in other words, that 24 Guardians at once become disqualified."
  And they were told in a light and airy manner that all was provided for in the Bill. How provided for in the Bill? 24 out of 35 disappeared altogether, and no provision, so far as he knew, was made for that in the Bill.
  "It must be noticed, however, that although the qualifications of the University Guardians is repealed, the statutory parish of the University is left untouched; thus it is not clear whether any or what number of Guardians would continue to be elected for the University, and if any, by what electorate, since the ordinary registers of electors mentioned in the Bill would scarcely seem applicable to this statutory parish. The present constitution of the Board has worked well, all classes of Oxford citizens being represented upon it. The Guardians, therefore, think it unwise to make such sweeping changes as those contemplated, particularly by a Bill which is intended to apply to Unions generally, and not to a Board of such an unusual character as Oxford. One other important point must not be overlooked. This Incorporation does not extend to the whole of the city; some six parishes, or parts of parishes, and of these three are very large and important, are in the Headington Union, and one whole parish and part of another in the Abingdon Union, and in another county."
  He would not trouble the Committee with further extracts from his correspondent, but he thought he had read enough to show that this question of the Oxford Incorporation was not a thing the
  1566
  Attorney General could wave aside with a hasty gesture of satisfaction and assurance. He had no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to impose disabilities on them, he dared say the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the Bill provided for it, but until he showed them it was so he (Mr. Talbot) did not think they should be satisfied; he might be, but his correspondents certainly would not be. The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had taken a peculiar view of the matter. He (Mr. Talbot) should have taken an opposite course. In order to call attention to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the hon. Member proposed to drive these Incorporations into the meshes of the right hon. Gentleman. For his own part, he should have desired to extricate them from the measure of the right hon. Gentleman. The question raised in this peculiar fashion was one well worthy the attention of the Committee, and was one that showed that the question of the Poor Law was so complicated that the Committee could have no conception of the complications, until they got into the thick of them, yet they were asked to enter into the consideration of this question on the 15th of December, within 10 days of Christmas Day—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is clearly not material.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he was afraid that would come, and he must not say anything about Christmas, on which he was going to have an eloquent peroration, but he hoped at any lime of the year the right hon. Gentleman would pause before he involved them in these complications. Though it might be a small matter in the eyes of the Government and some hon. Members, it was a matter that very closely affected the local life of the University and City of Oxford, and was worthy of the attention of the Committee, therefore he hoped the Government would not conclude the subject hastily.
  SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, he had no intention, either by what he had said, or by his manner, to dogmatise in this subject. He did not pretend to have any special knowledge about it, but he did say that the Statute to which he had referred did deal with a large number of cases, though he would not go to the

  1567
  length of saying that it covered all of them. As to the particular case of Oxford, his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had something to say in reference to it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Junior Member for the University of Oxford intimated that the Government in dealing with the Poor Law question in this Bill entirely overlooked the case of Oxford; he described all the complications that will in consequence ensue in the Oxford Union, and named the 15th day of December as the day on which that crime was committed. Well, I think it was about the 15th day of November—a month ago —that I was in communication with the Senior Member for the University of Oxford, who brought the matter before me, and I arranged with the right hon. Gentleman that a clause should be brought in to meet the case of Oxford. It was most carefully considered by the legal advisers of the Government, and a clause was drawn up to deal with it. That clause provides that nothing in this Bill shall affect the incorporation of the Guardians of the Poor at Oxford, or the qualifications of electors of the members of the Board representing either the University or the Town Council. That clause was submitted to the Senior Representative of Oxford; it was accepted by him, and I have never heard a word of complaint in reference to it till now. I must really enter my most respectful protest against such treatment to a Minister in charge of a Bill of this description.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he desired to make a personal explanation. He did not think there was anything to complain of in his remarks, and certainly he had no intention of being discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman. He was quite aware that there had been communications between his colleague and the Government, but that did not detract from the fact that the matter was one which was not provided for in the Bill. The clause which the right hon. Gentleman had read was not on the Paper. Neither he nor his constituents had had an opportunity of considering it.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: They had.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, that some of his constituents might have been aware of the clause, but not all. He should earnestly but respectfully say that
  1568
  this was a matter of importance, and a matter that could not be disposed of in the manner of the Attorney General.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University should be held to blame in this matter. The clause was not on the Paper, and so far as he personally was concerned he had never heard of it till he listened to the brief description of it given by the President of the Local Government Board. His hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry had referred to another incorporation in his own neighbourhood as to which no reply had been made. When he himself was Secretary to the Poor Law Board in 1868, the dissolution of the old incorporations was in progress, and parishes which had been grouped together for union purposes, though separated from each other and scattered here and there, were collected, as it were, within a ring fence. He rather gathered that the case to which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford referred was a survival of the system which prevailed up to 1868. Unless some statement was made on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Oswestry, he should come to the conclusion that, whereas the Government had met the case of Oxford, which had been brought specially under their notice, no arrangement had been made to meet the case brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: On that point I have only to say that the hon. Member is anxious to bring the incorporation in his division within the purview of the Bill; and that we have already done so. There is no doubt about it.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that possibly there were one or two other cases of incorporation, like the case of Oxford, which would have to be dealt with by the Oxford Clause, or a similar clause. There were a fairish number of other incorporations, but they were precisely similar to existing Boards of Guardians, though existing under other Acts, and there covered by the Bill.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he did not know why Oxford should be signalised by having a special clause of its own put into the Bill. He was aware that Bristol was also a case of a peculiar character. He raised the question in

  1569
  order that some method might be devised for dealing with all these cases. He would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon) moved to amend the clause, in page 12, line 30, before "There," by inserting—
  "The Local Government Board shall appoint to be members of each Board of Guardians a number of persons not exceeding one for every five elected Guardians, and not exceeding three on any one Board, subject to this provision."
  The Government contended that in this clause there was no interfering with the Poor Law. But if there was one thing that experience taught them it was that the effect of laws depended even more on their administration than on their provisions; and in this case they were interfering with the administration of the Poor Law, and that in a very incomplete, and therefore, he contended, very dangerous fashion. What he contended for was in the interests of economical and efficient administration. When he raised the question on Clause 3, in relation to the constitution of the Parish Council, he endeavoured to enforce his argument by reference to the Poor Law. He did so because in this region they had experience to guide them; in the work of the Parish Councils the experience was yet to come. The President of the Local Government Board, however, objected to any discussion of the Poor Law on that clause, on the ground that such discussion belonged to Clause 19. Now that they had reached Clause 19, he invited the right hon. Gentleman's friendly and favourable consideration of some safeguard against the imminent risks which the Bill as it stood would involve. What was the Government proposing to do? To abolish the property qualification of Guardians and plural voting. Well and good. Let every capable person be eligible, and let the principle of "One Man One Vote" apply to the elections. They also proposed to abolish the ex officio Guardians. He did not ask for their retention; but in many Unions they were at least a safeguard. Nay, more, in those Unions they had been the reformers, and had set the example of sound administration. He contended that at first, at all events, safeguards, examples, and experience were wanted, and
  1570
  that if they abolished the existing ones they should supply others. It would in no way detract from the powers of the elected Guardians. He contended for nothing of the kind. Let the elected Guardians have the power. He proposed the addition of a few members representing instructed experience not to oppose their colleagues, but to help them. They would have no power to oppose the elected Guardians, for they would be but a small minority. If it were proposed to put them on anything near a numerical equality with the others he, for one, should strenuously oppose as unwise such a proposal; but what he did want was one or two to advise and keep up a continuity of good experience and work. What had been their experience of the position and work of ex officio Guardians? Here he would ask his reforming friends not to be guided alone by the experience of their own Unions. In many Unions the work would perhaps go on without material change in those who administered it, but that would not be the case in the Unions generally, as any experienced Inspector would tell them. Very few ex officio Guardians, comparatively speaking, had acted on the Boards. Those who had really taken a working part in Poor Law administration had been but a small minority as compared with the elective members of the Boards. Yet, taking this into account, the cases in which the ex officios have been freely chosen by their colleagues to be chairmen of the Boards have been very numerous. That was the best possible proof of the value as Guardians of persons belonging to the class from which ex officio Guardians were taken, for their elective colleagues themselves—so far from being jealous of them—choose them in a quite disproportionate number of cases to be their chairmen. To that extent the ex officio system had been of service. It had brought into some of the Boards experience of a wider sort than was often to be found among the elective Guardians, and the value of experience could hardly be over-rated. The jealousy was only— and it was a natural and reasonable jealousy—against the ex officios who come intermittently to the Board meetings, only to outvote, embarrass, and upset the work of those who attended and worked regularly. The proposal he

  1571
  had put on the Paper was a very small one; but in view of this, it was very important. It would, at any rate, bridge over the change of system by enabling them to retain the services of those who had made certain Unions examples of what a Poor Law system ought to be. It could do harm in any Union; it would do very great good in a number of Unions. There were very few Unions in the country where the system of administration was yet worked entirely free from those defects which produced such disastrous results previous to 1834, in reducing the wages of the industrious, and demoralising the work and the character of our industrial population. Even in a Union like that of Liverpool, consisting of an exceptionally careful body of Guardians, who had introduced some of the best improvements on the Poor Law system that had been introduced within the last 30 years, they found that they were doing this. The greatest difficulty they had to deal with in Liverpool was the deficiency of employment for women and girls; as so much of the labour there required full-grown men. They found from the information received by one or two of the Guardians, who from their extended trade were cognisant of what was going on elsewhere, that within 30 miles of them it was just their surplus labour which they were pauperising that was most needed and best paid. In two years they emigrated about 1,100 persons there, and from being paupers or on the verge of pauperism, they soon received ample wages and lived in comfortable cottages. But that was not the most striking result of their action. They found that the migration of about 300 or 400 widows, who were the heads of those families, and who were just too many for the remunerative demand for their labour as charwomen in Liverpool, actually raised the wages of the thousands of charwomen in the population of 500,000 inhabitants of Liverpool, to a remunerative rate of 2s. a day and their food, while such families were able to get, within two or three months of their removal, £2 a week and upwards, rising as other members of their families grew up. Now had there not been on the Board of Guardians in Liverpool, two or three members whose experience and knowledge of such matters was not mostly
  1572
  confined to the locality, they should have gone on, making paupers and prostitutes, just as they did with almost the whole agricultural population previous to 1834 throughout the country; and he was afraid they were doing this still to a considerable extent, where there was a deficiency of that extra-local knowledge. A Member of the House, to whom he mentioned these circumstances, said that in his own knowledge he could mention a still more striking instance. In his parish Union, which was not a very large one, and, therefore, did not contain a great number of agricultural labourers, there was just one labourer too many. The man found work elsewhere, and the disappearance of this slight excess raised the wages of the parish 1s, a week, and benefited those who employed the labour, by giving them reasonably remunerated and regular workers, instead of those who were occasionally out of employment, and, therefore, thrown into temptation by the competition of one more than was needed. When they come to consider the results, they would see that this was only in accordance with the natural law of supply and demand. An excess or a deficiency in the supply of an article lowered or raised the price of that article far more than the percentage of excess or deficiency. This illustration showed only one of the many ways in which the presence on Boards of Guardians of even a very few who have varied experience and knowledge could safeguard the working of the system. At the present time, when they were perfecting the system of government of the people by the people, there was perhaps a tendency to take little heed of all save the representative principle. But all who had much practical knowledge of the Poor Law, and especially those who realises the condition of pauperism to which maladministration had reduced the country before 1834, must be conscious of the enormous importance of securing that the law might be wisely and prudently, as well as honestly and sympathetically, administered. Now, this administration of the Poor Law was a difficult and delicate work. It was one which required the best thought and the best energies of the best men and women of all classes in all parts of the country. If they failed to steer the true course, they knew by past experience into what

  1573
  disaster they might fall, resulting in moral degradation and ruin to a large portion of the nation. These evils, great as they were during the first part of this century, would be greater now, when the struggle for existence was keener and the population more abundant. What was wanted in every Board of Guardians were men of wider experience and broader culture. At present Parliament was apt, in perfecting local government to take too little notice of anything except representation by direct election. In America experience had induced a directly contrary course; and nomination was being resorted to to an extent which seemed to him dangerous, but which had proved beneficial. The administration of the Poor Law was, as he had said, one of the most delicate and difficult tasks in the whole of our local government, and the business of Parliament was to insure that the best men would come forward. Without some change the Bill did not promise to bring home their duty in this respect to the men whose services could not be dispensed with. Therefore, to secure the most efficient personnel on the Boards of Guardians was an object of the first importance. It was not sufficient to say that the people knew what they were about. Let the best men come forward and the people would elect them. It was their business to do all that lies in their power, while dealing with this Bill, to ensure that the best men should come forward. It would be no consolation to them, when they had made a mistake and were suffering for it, to say, "Oh, if only men of experience had asserted themselves and got themselves elected, it would have been all right." Did the Bill promise to secure for them the maximum of efficiency on the Boards of Guardians? Surely everyone knew that—however things ought to be—as a matter of fact there was a large section of people who had all the qualities they wanted for Poor Law administration, including the willingness to work, but who would not, under present circumstances, compete with others at a popular election. Did they think that the working of the Poor Law was such a very easy, or such an unimportant matter, that they could dispense with the services of such men and their experience, without at least trying to press them into the ser-
  1574
  vice? If ever they could dispense with the services of such men, they should at least want them in the immediate future, when they were making the most material changes in the election and constitution of the Boards of Guardians. Looking at the immediate future and a comparatively small and limited class,— those ex officio Guardians who were recognised as working and leading members in their respective districts. Were their services suddenly to be lost? Were they, as some said, to get themselves elected? They could only be elected by displacing others, and it was certain that some, at least, would refuse to do this, and would not offer themselves against their own colleagues. The ex officio system, however, though it had in many instances produced beneficial results, must, doubtless, disappear, and, as a system, he did not defend or uphold it. In the great majority of cases, it resulted in the ex officio member being a constant absentee—sometimes in his being what was worse, the ex officio only appearing when an appointment was to be made. If a man had it brought home to him that it was his duty to do a thing, he would in most cases do it; under the present ex officio system, what was everybody's business was too often nobody's business. His object—and he cared more for attaining the general object than for the particular way of doing it—was to lay hold of the class of the community to whom he had referred, and to bring them—almost to force them— on to the Boards of Guardians. Once they got them there what would be their position? It was said that they would create jealousy and friction and all uncharitableness among the Guardians. His answer was that this was not the existing experience, and the proof he offered was the position of those ex officio Guardians who, under the present system, attended the meetings and did the work. Nor was there any reason why friction should be created by a small number of Guardians thus chosen. If the elected Guardians did not agree with their colleagues, they would simply outvote them by five or six, or, if they liked, eight to one. The Guardians chosen in any of the ways proposed would, he believed, have great weight and influence, but they could only gain and keep it by convincing the rest that they were right. Why should there

  1575
  be jealousy and friction? They (the Liberals) were not afraid; they (the Conservatives) were not afraid that the Boards of Guardians would want to go wrong, and they would welcome colleagues whose admission would tend to the efficiency of administration, to give strength and credit to their Board, and whose presence, therefore, would be to the advantage of all. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the proposal which he made. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
  In page 12, line 30, before the word "There," to insert the words "The Local Government Board shall appoint to be members of each Board of Guardians a number of persons not exceeding one for every five elected Guardians, and not exceeding three on any one Board."— (Mr. Rathbone.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The subsection of Clause 19, on which the Amendment has been moved, raises the question whether there should be ex officio or nominated Guardians. My hon. Friend has pronounced a severe condemnation of ex officio Guardians, and has shown that, generally, when they attend they outvote and embarrass those who do the work.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he had pronounced a strong condemnation; but it had been show that in from one-third to a half of the Unions in England they had not been an evil, but a great benefit.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes, Sir; I do not deny that there has been good work done by these ex officio Guardians. But, at all events, this part of the clause is the crux of this portion of the Bill, and I think this is the proper occasion upon which I should make a statement. Well, Sir, I do not apprehend that there will be any serious conflict on the question of plural voting or of voting by ballot, but I gather that it is in connection with this sub-section that the main question of interfering with the Poor Law will be raised. I think the occasion, therefore, is an appropriate one to state what the views of the Government are in proposing this sub-section, and why they think this sub-section is not open to the criticisms which have been
  1576
  passed upon it. The reason the Government has proposed this sub-section is in order to dispose now, as I hope, of the question of District Councils. The late President of the Local Government Board in 1888 included in his Bill a scheme for the creation of District Councils, and he provided that the area of the District Council should be that of the present Rural Sanitary Authority of the district. In 1888 it was proposed to create a fresh body—a rural District Council elected by the county electors; plural voting was to be abolished, and vote by ballot introduced; and the late President of the Local Government Board proposed to transfer all the powers which the Government now propose to transfer from the Rural Sanitary Authorities to the District Councils. The main point of difference between the Government scheme and that of the late Government is that they did not propose to interfere with the Boards of Guardians. The late Government left that organisation as it was—untouched, and they created an additional organisation side by side with it in the same area. I do not think there will be any difference of opinion that, in forming these District Councils, the proper area is the Union. If the matter were being dealt with for the first time the country might possibly be mapped out in a better manner than by Unions; but the Union has existed for a large number of years, and I for one do not see that it is possible to interfere with that area. The Government is taking the existing area and organisation, and is retaining the Guardians, who act as the Rural Sanitary Authority, as the District Council. Well, then, Sir, how is that District Council to be elected? It must be elected in the same manner as the County Council, the Municipal Council, and the Parish Council. There cannot be a separate system of election in the midst of the local government system. The late Government got to the principle of a very extended democratic suffrage— they swept away plural voting and gave the protection of the ballot. That system prevails in our Municipalities, and the Committee has adopted in it the case of the Parish Council, and it would, I think, be absurd to say that the District Council is to be elected on a totally different basis, and that it should have added to it a number of

  1577
  gentlemen who have neither elective authority nor elective responsibility. It would be a backward step to add another authority to those which already exist. It may be said—"Why not leave the Boards of Guardians alone, and elect the District Councils upon the basis I have just now alluded to? Well, Sir, I think that would be an unnecessary multiplication of authorities. The Rural Sanitary Authority have since 1872 been the administrators of rural sanitary affairs; they have the organisation, and they have the staff and machinery, and, if for nothing else, it would be an expensive and useless change to create a fresh authority. There would also be a difficulty in finding a large number of competent men. I do not minimise the difficulty which arises from the abolition of ex officio Guardians. The hon. Member has shown that that they have done both good and bad work. From time to time they have protected the interests of the ratepayers and have promoted good administration of the Poor Law; and they have also from time to time used their powers for mischievous purposes. Perhaps I entertain a little better opinion of them than the hon. Member does. But I would repeat what I have already said, that the Government do nothing to weaken the Poor Law Statute of 1834. They would uphold it to the uttermost. The argument against this clause is that the Poor Law depends upon its local administration. I shall try and controvert that proposition Prior to 1834 the practical administration of Poor Law relief was vested in the Overseers and Justices, and that the system broke down, owing to the reckless distribution of outdoor relief. That was the evil with which the great reformers had to deal, and the organisation under which it existed was one, to a great extent, of ex officio members and Overseers. The Report of the Poor Law Commission was singularly silent as to the constitution of the new Boards of Guardians which they recommended, the reason being, in my opinion, that they attached far greater importance to another branch of the Poor Law administration which under this Bill would still remain absolutely untouched. In the Debates on the passing of the Poor Law, there is no trace of any discussion on ex officio Guardians,
  1578
  and, although some sturdy Radicals of that day strongly objected to the introduction of the plural vote, the House of Commons passed, without question, the introduction of ex officio Guardians, consisting of Justices residing in the various Unions, who previously had had the administration of the Poor Law in their own hands, and who were not disestablished. I have not been able to find how many justices there were in 1834, and I do not know of any Return which shows accurately the number at present.
  An hon. MEMBER: 11,800.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: There must have been an increase from 1834 to 1893; but, at any rate, in 1834 the Justices were exclusively taken from one class with a very high qualification, and the Lords Lieutenant exercised their powers of appointment with great rigidity. The number of ex officio Members was, I think, much smaller than it is now, whereas the Unions were practically the same. The principle applicable to these District Councils must be one of uniformity and consistency, and it ought not to depend upon accidental circumstances as to whether or not the elected or the ex officio element should prevail. Of the 28,134 Guardians in England and Wales—excluding the Metropolis—20,165 are elected and 7,969 ex officio. It is singular to note how the ex officio Guardians are distributed. In 13 Unions there are none, and in 24 Unions they number one-half or more of the whole Board. In 324 cases they number one-fourth, or less that one-half; in 227 cases, one-eighth, or less than one-fourth; in 30 cases they are less than one-eighth. Could hon. Gentlemen conceive a system more irreconcilable with any principle than that on which this element is introduced? When we look at the working of the system in the various Unions the result is more extraordinary. Taking two Unions in Bedfordshire—Ampthill and Bedford—I find that in one there are 24 elected and five ex officio Guardians, and in the other 47 elected and 21 ex officio Guardians. In Reading there are 21 elected Guardians and none ex officio; but in Windsor there are 19 elected and 25 ex officio Guardians, and in Wallingford there are

  1579
  30 elected and five ex officio Guardians. I really would commend the cases I have just mentioned to those who bring forward the argument that greater care is taken by ex officio than by elected Guardians in regard to the administration of outdoor relief. In Altrinchham, in Cheshire, there are 46 elected and 45 ex officio Guardian; in Nantwich there are 71 elected and 15 ex officio Guardians, and in Stockport there are 27 elected and 36 ex officio Guardians. In Helston, in Cornwall, there are 40 elected and five ex officio Guardians. Taking the Unions of Derbyshire, I find that in Ashbourne there are 62 elected and 14 ex officio Guardians; in Belper there are 54 elected and 36 ex officio Guardians, and in Bakewell there are 69 elected and and 20 ex officio Guardians, while in Hay field there are 17 elected and 3 ex officio Guardians. In the South, Southampton has 18 elected and 48 ex officio Guardians, while Plymouth has 50 elected Guardians and none ex officio. If the principle of ex officio Guardians is good the existing arrangement must be bad for Plymouth; if it is bad the arrangement must be bad for Southampton. In Shaftesbury there are 24 elected Guardians and one ex officio; while in Poole there are 18 elected and 19 ex officio Guardians. In Christchurch the numbers of the two classes are equal, while in Andover the proportion is 28 elected to nine ex officio Guardians.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: Is that a Return?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Yes, Sir; the figures are contained in a Departmental Return which I shall have no hesitation in laying on the Table. In London, where the system of nomination by the Local Government Board is, to a certain extent, in operation there is the same extraordinary discrepancy between the different Unions, Kensington and St. George's, Hanover Square, having a large majority of ex officio Guardians. My argument is that if the principle is good it ought to be applied uniformly; and that if the system is not applied with something like consistency, it cannot be of that enormous administrative advantage which hon. Gentlemen opposite claim for it. It is true that in 237 cases ex officio Guardians have been chosen
  1580
  chairmen. But, on the other hand, 397 elected Guardians have been similarly selected, while out of a total of 1,083 vice-chairmen 973 have been chosen from the elected Guardians. What the opponents of the change appear to be afraid of is that it will lead to an increase of indiscriminate outdoor relief.
  MR. W. LONG: Oh, no.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is my statement. I do not believe any such result will follow. The Poor Law Commission attach very slight importance to the administration by the Guardians; but they attach supreme importance to the central authority, and I must submit to the House that in that is to be found the true safeguard for wise Poor Law administration. My argument is that if the change involves alteration in the class of administrators, which the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire seems to anticipate, it will not lead to such mischief as my hon. Friend apprehended. The control of out-door relief will still be regulated by the Central Authority, and will not be left to depend wholly on the action or will of local administrators. The orders of the Local Government Board on this subject apply—some to rural districts and others to urban districts. They have what is called an outdoor prohibitory order and an outdoor relief regulation order. Where the outdoor prohibition order is enforced outdoor relief cannot be given to any able-bodied person or family except in cases of sudden and urgent necessity, sickness, infirmity, and absolute disability to work. That is the safeguard. I lay down this principle—that the Guardians in rural parishes cannot give outdoor relief except in conformity with the regulations of the Local Government Board, and those regulations safeguard the ratepayers. The order I have mentioned may, in special cases, be supplemented by a further order of the Local Government Board, which prescribes a labour test and under which half of the relief given out of the workhouse to any able-bodied person must be given in food, clothing, or necessaries, and no relief can be given while a man is working for wages or receiving remuneration. Where the regulation order is enforced—which is in a great portion of the urban districts—no relief can be given to an able-

  1581
  bodied person when employed for wages, and if relief is given to a man out of the workhouse he must be set to work on a labour test. That is the present position. There is no power to grant outdoor relief except in accordance with the Orders of the Local Government Board, and those Orders are in force in every part of the Kingdom. In the next place, the Local Government Board has power to modify those regulations—even to the extent of prohibiting all outdoor relief. Therefore, I contend that no change in the administration of the Poor Law can have the evil effect which some hon. Members seem to anticipate, because, as the Chancellor of Exchequer has said in regard to this point, "You may change the trustees, but you cannot change the trust." The Local Government Board are the Guardians of the trust, responsible to Parliament and the country to see that the Poor Law is properly administered, and the Board of Guardians is the machinery by which the regulations of the Local Government Board are carried out. It has been said, and rightly, that the friction between the elected Guardians and the ex officio Guardians where it has occurred has not arisen in connection with the administration of the Poor Law itself, but in connection with the administration of the patronage of the Poor Law. Well, Sir, I recognise1 that some of the best Guardians are ex officio Guardians, and I should be sorry to see them excluded from the future management of the Poor Law. I believe, however, that they will be found doing as good work in the future as they have done in the past. The difference will be that now they will be elected, at least that all the good ones will be. That is my opinion. Writing on this subject, a great Poor Law authority, one who has taken an enormous interest in the subject, I mean Lord E. Fitzmaurice, says—
  "If a country gentleman has a desire to serve his neighbours in local affairs they, as a rule, are only too glad to command his services, and it may be safely said that if ever country gentlemen are excluded from the administration of the affairs of their neighbourhoods it "will be by their own neglect."
  The Government admit that ex officio Guardians have rendered great services; but, at the same time, they recognise that
  1582
  it is impossible to retain anomalies of this kind in our system of Local Government. They hold that the same principle must be applied in the case of the Poor Law as is applied in other administrative matters —namely, the principle of election by the popular vote under the protection of the ballot and without any plural voting.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that those who were not in favour of this change were afraid of an indiscriminate increase of outdoor relief. It would, he thought, be absurd to say that that fear was not entertained. The cost that would be entailed if that fear was realised was not the most serious part of the question; it was unimportant as compared with the great question of the demoralisation of the people, to which a great increase of outdoor relief must lead. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to hold that the real controlling and guiding power in Poor Law affairs was the central Board in London. If that was so, it was surprising that there should be so much variety in the administration of the law. There were some model Unions where, by wise and careful management, largely due to the ex officio Guardians, the poor were well cared for, although very little outdoor relief was given, and there were other Unions where outdoor relief was given recklessly, and where, nevertheless, great privation was suffered by the poor. He did not understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman when he said this Bill would not affect the Poor Law at all. It was surprising to see the right hon. Gentleman as a local government reformer lay such stress on central administration. If local government meant anything for the education and advancement of the people the control from London should be reduced to a minimum; therefore, he considered it a great anomaly that this great advocate of local government should lay such stress on the central control. As to the friction which the right hon. Gentleman said had been introduced on certain Boards of Guardians by ex officio Members only attending when patronage had to be given away, no doubt there were cases where this had occurred. He did not think, however, that the fact that

  1583
  that had occurred showed that the system had been wrong. As the hon. Member for Carnarvon had said, they required on the Boards of Guardians another element beyond the single elective element on these bodies. They wanted on these bodies not necessarily persons of higher social position, but persons of wider knowledge and experience, who would be independent of the fluctating popular excitement of the moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that all the good ex officio Guardians would, as a matter of course, be elected. He (Mr. Bartley) did not think that that would be the case. Of course, a great many of them would be, but there were many Useful men willing and anxious to serve who would not go through the trouble and everlasting turmoil of these elections. He did not say that the present system was not a cumbrous and antiquated mode of election. He did not say that the system of giving some people more votes than others was not to be defended in many ways, but, no doubt, the time had come when a more popularly elected form of Guardians was desirable. But what they wanted to see was, combined with this, some system whereby nominated or ex officio Guardians would be retained. Everyone would admit that the attendance of the ex officios to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was very irregular, and no doubt the number of ex officios was not uniform. There was no general system, but that was to be explained in this way: that in many places, as in London, every Magistrate appointed became thereby an ex officio Guardian. Many men were appointed as Magistrates who did not intend to serve as Guardians. That was an evil, but because the present system was not all that they desired it did not follow that they must do away with it altogether. It might be reformed. At any rate, they should proceed by steps, and should not do away with ex officio or nominated Guardians at the very moment they were trying the experiment of making the other Guardians depend for their office entirely on the popular vote. The man who at an election promised liberal outdoor relief and employment and all the rest of it, was pretty sure to be elected. That would be a great evil. They knew perfectly well that
  1584
  even politicians were apt to trim. They knew that on popular questions politicians were apt to do that which they thought popular, and it seemed obvious that they would get a certain number of Guardians elected who would promise liberal outdoor relief. Guardians, although the theories they held might be sound, were often liable to be led by feelings of generosity, particularly when they were acquainted with the people who made application for outdoor relief, so that it was an advantage to have on the Boards some few ex officio members who were independent of popular control. Well, such a system as the Amendment indicated would promote continuity in the observance of general principles of relief, and could not fail to tend to the ultimate benefit of the poor though the donor think it the best form that could be suggested. As one who had taken immense interest in this subject for 30 years, he wished to say that all beneficial Poor Law reforms were at the moment, as a rule, not popular. The administration of relief on a wise and sound basis very often at first appeared somewhat harsh and a man who was appointed for a year only by a popular vote really had not sufficient experience, and had not time to initiate and carry out great principles. If they had one or two men on a Board who were altogether independent of popular control, though they might not be in a majority, they might leven the whole lump and tend to make other members look on these cases with care and consideration. Their presence would ultimately tend not so much to a reduction of the poor rate as to what was infinitely more important—namely, a wise administration of the law, which would bring about a reduction of poverty and misery. They must remember that, although the present Poor Law system was instituted in 1834, more than a generation elapsed before very much effect was produced. Even 20 or 25 years ago the number of paupers in this country was nearly double what it was at present. It had only been really within the last 30 years that owing to certain Societies and the action of men of high knowledge and culture and philanthropy, that gradual improvement had been brought about. The danger he saw before him in the change was that,

  1585
  from a sentimental idea and running the principle of representative government to an extreme, injury might be done to those people whom it should be the highest aim of philanthropy and legislation to raise.
  MR. J. STUARTsaid, the speech they had just listened to implied a fallacy which they on the Ministerial side of the House entirely repudiated. The hon. Gentleman had shown that distrust of popular government which was frequently manifested by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The hon. Member said they were about to abolish ex officio Guardians at a dangerous time—namely, at the very time when they were placing the election of Guardians on a broad and popular basis. Hon. Members on the Government side of the House believed that the election of Guardians on the broadest principle was the best safeguard for the proper administration of the Poor Law. The hon. Member said that a person who offered himself for election under the system of popular representation and promised a large system of outdoor relief would be returned. He (Mr. Stuart) entirely disagreed with and repudiated that imputation. He did not believe it at all. The whole history of the Poor Law showed that indiscriminate outdoor relief was the surest way of bringing down wages. Those who would suffer most would be the new constituencies under this Bill, and it was not likely that those who would suffer most from reduced wages would bring that result upon themselves. Surely these people would be more anxious to protect themselves and their own pockets from the evil of indiscriminate outdoor relief than ex officio Guardians would be. He was far from saying, as the hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that outdoor relief was of necessity an evil. It was indiscriminate outdoor relief that was an evil. The best system of Poor Law in the world was that of Elberfield, which was a system of discriminating outdoor relief. Therefore he did not admit that outdoor relief without an adjective was an evil. The hon. Member's argument for nominated or ex officio Guardians would go far beyond the Poor Law, and apply equally to the Parish and County Councils, and
  1586
  even to the House of Commons. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had been arguing in favour of ex officio or nominated Guardians. There was a difference between the two because, of course, the ex officio Guardians were those who, as the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had shown, were in such varying proportions over the whole country that it was impossible to apply any general principles to them. Nominated Guardians might, perhaps, be selected in some more regular way. In any case what they held in that quarter of the House was that the safest and best method by which they could regulate and administer the Poor Law was by placing its administration under direct popular representation.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that no one would suffer more from indiscriminate outdoor relief in its necessary result of reducing wages than the constituencies themselves. That was a matter over which they were all agreed, but he did not think it was at all clear that the people themselves would always see it in that light, and he took it that it required a certain amount of reading, understanding, thinking and studying of political economy to see that the inevitable result of indiscriminate outdoor relief was to produce a reduction in wages. He doubted very much whether the great majority of the people themselves were able to appreciate that fact. To his mind the Poor Law should be administered with a certain amount of rigidity. That should be the essence of the Poor Law. With regard to the ex officio Guardians he thought they had been treated a little harshly. They had had their supporters this evening and no one could deny that the ex officio Guardians had done real and good service—
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I said so.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had said one word in their favour, but had rather blotted it out by two words against them. His (Sir R. Paget's) ears caught the sense of the right hon. Gentleman's blame rather more distinctly than the sense of his praise. There were many people well fitted to perform the duties of Guardians

  1587
  who would shrink from elections and all the horrors that belonged to them. He thought that if some process could be discovered by which, without leaving the ex officio Guardians in their present position, the Board of Guardians themselves could have the power of electing to their body certain men in whom they had confidence and whose services were of value, they would be adopting a system which they all wanted. They wanted the services of these men where they could be made available. In opposition to the President of the Local Government Board, he would point out that the Report of 1834 insisted by no means exclusively in its recommendations on central control. That was one of many recommendations, but the right hon. Gentleman had held it up as the only recommendation of value. What he contended for was that by so changing the electoral conditions the Government were practically changing the administration of the Poor Law. They would have a different class of men in charge of the administration. Great changes had occurred since 1834. In 1871 there was an important Memorandum issued by the Local Government Board pointing out the defects of the administration and the result of that was so marked that in that year and the year following they had a large reduction in the number of the outdoor poor. Why was that? Because the administration of the Poor Law had got very lax and fallen back year by year into something of the conditions in which it existed in 1834. The result of the Memorandum was the Poor Law meetings held from year to year, the chairmen of Boards of Guardians and many leading authorities meeting together and discussing amongst themselves the results of their efforts, The history of the Poor Law from beginning to end showed that when things went wrong it was not the law but the administration that was in fault. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler), would forgive him for saying so, he placed too much belief in the power of his own Department to keep the administration of the Poor Law perfectly right. The right hon. Gentleman said that by his central Department and its regulations, he could control the whole of the Poor Law—
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg pardon. What I said was that the central Department can prevent any reckless administration.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, he had understood the right hon. Gentleman's contention to be that such was the force of that central control, which was the main feature of the Report of 1834, that the Committee might dismiss from their minds any fear whatever respecting the state of things that would prevail under an entirely new electoral system, as the Department could not go wrong. The right hon. Gentleman was a little too sanguine, and did not apparently fully realise that the enormous importance of administration was the one key-note of the whole subject. It could not for a moment be supposed that one could adopt the new system with a light heart.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  EAST INDIA LOAN (£10,000,000) BILL. (No. 745.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  [Sir J. GOLDSMID in the Chair.]
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Do I understand that the Third Reading of this Bill will be taken as first Order on Monday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: That is so. It has been found convenient to the gentlemen who are interested in this Bill to take the discussion they desire as the first Order on Monday, on the understanding that it will not be a protracted discussion.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill reported without Amendments; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,—(Mr. Marjoribanks,)—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at two minutes after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.