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

HC Deb 15 December 1893 vol 19 cc1506-88

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 LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)

said, 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 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. The matter appeared to him to be perfectly simple.

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

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

said, 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. FOWLER

said, he thought the point was clearly expressed.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, 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 BETHELL

said, 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 LAWSON

said, 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. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, 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 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. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

moved:— 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. PAGET

said, 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 on the question of " parish meeting" has been come to already.

SIR R. PAGET

said, 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. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, 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. LONG

said, 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. HANBURY (Preston)

said, 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 COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, 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 COOKE (Hereford)

thought 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 BOWLES

said, 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 LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)

said, 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. FOWLER

said, it was not necessary to have a vice-chairman on a small Parish Council.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

hoped 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. FOWLER

said, they would be turned into ridicule.

SIR J. GORST

said, 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. HANBURY

was 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 BOWLES

said, 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. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, 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. TALBOT

said, 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. STANSFELD

said, 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. BILL (Staffordshire, Leek)

said, 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 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. RUSSELL

said, 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. 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 COLLINGS

said, 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. HANBURY

said, 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. FOWLER

said, 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 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. BARTLEY

said, 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. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, 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. COURTNEY

said, 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. 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. RUSSELL

said, 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. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

said, 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 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 COOKE

said, 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 LEIGHTON

said, 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. 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. STANSFELD

said, 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. HANBURY (Preston)

pointed 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, and he might transact business which might be very detrimental to his fellow-parishioners.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

observed, 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 JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)

said, 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. BILL

said, 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 (Bristol, W.)

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 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. BARTLEY

moved 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. FOWLER

said, 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 LAWSON

moved 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 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. FOWLER

said, 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 LAWSON

said, 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 BETHELL

asked, would not the committee be authorised to spend money which had been already raised for administrative purposes?

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, 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. PAGET

said, 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. FOWLER

said, 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. BARTLEY

moved 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. FOWLER

thought the hon. Member had not had a wide experience of the working of municipal 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 COLLINGS

expressed 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. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said, 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 LAWSON

moved, 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. RUSSELL

said, 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- 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. WEBSTER

said, 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 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. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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. PAGET

asked 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. PAGET

said, 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 and that they would be conferred gradually on the parish meetings.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said, 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. HANBURY

said, 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. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said, 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. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he thought this Amendment raised an important matter of principle. The Opposition had always contended that local government by parish meeting was 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. TEMPLE

said, 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 LAWSON

said, 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 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-BEACH

said, 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. FOWLER

said, 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. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

moved 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 COOKE

said, he proposed to move an Amendment to the Amendment just proposed.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he would like to know why the chairman of a parish meeting should be regarded as a body corporate?

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the object of his Amendment was perfectly simple; but he was willing to listen to any suggestion with regard to it.

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, 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 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. RUSSELL

said, he was sorry the hon. Member had put down this Amendment in this way, in manuscript, and without notice.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

said, 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 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. RUSSELL

said, 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 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. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, 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 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 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. FOWLER

said, 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-BEACH

said, 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. HOBHOUSE

said, 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. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, 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. HOBHOUSE

said, 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. PAGET

said, 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. FOWLER

said, 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 COLLINGS

said, 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-BEACH

said, 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 LAWSON

said, 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 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-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

said, 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. HARTLEY

invited 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. LOWTHER

was 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 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 CHAIRMAN

said, the right hon. Gentleman was not now keeping to the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

must 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 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. RUSSELL

remarked 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 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. DORINGTON

said, 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. HOBHOUSE

certainly 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 the Government proposal was better than his own, he would accept the compromise.

MR. W. LONG

observed 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. RUSSELL

proposed 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. PAGET

moved, 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-BEACH

presumed 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. FOWLER

said, 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-BEACH

was understood to say the question was one of considerable importance.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE

asked, were they to understand that the chairman of the parish meeting was to have the power to consent on its behalf?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, 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 COOKE

said, he thought the point should be considered.

MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, 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. JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)

said, 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. PAGET

said, 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. 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- 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 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 (St. George's, Hanover Square)

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- 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, 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 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. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, 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 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. FOWLER

said, 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 District Councils out of the Bill, the Bill would have to be withdrawn in order to frame efficiently the constructive machinery.

MR. COURTNEY

said, 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 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. HARCOURT

said, 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. LONG

said, 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, 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 LAWSON

said, 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- 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 was limited to the postponement of Clause 19.

MR. STOREY

begged 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 LAWSON

said, the Motion before the Committee was simply that Clause 19 should be postponed.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is so.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, 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 LAWSON

said, he was seeking to show the result of postponing the clause would be to keep 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 Morgan

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. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, 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 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. 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. TEMPLE

said, 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. STOREY

said, 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. STOREY

said, 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 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. LONG

said, 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- 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. LONG

said, 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 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 LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, 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 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. RUSSELL

said, 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. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said 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— 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 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. TALBOT

said, 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. RUSSELL

said, 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 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. TALBOT

said, 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. TALBOT

said, that some of his constituents might have been aware of the clause, but not all. He should earnestly but respectfully say that this was a matter of importance, and a matter that could not be disposed of in the manner of the Attorney General.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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 LEIGHTON

said, 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 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) 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 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 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 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 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- 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 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. RATHBONE

said, 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 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 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, 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 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 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- 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 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. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, 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 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 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, 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. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, 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 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. PAGET

said, 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. PAGET

said, 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 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. PAGET

said, 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.