§ COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th November.]
§ [THIRD NIGHT.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 10, to leave out the word "three," and insert the word "two."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'three' stand part of the Clause."
§ Debate resumed.
1286§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)said, he had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Pill (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would have been prepared to reconsider his position and to make some statement which would have relieved the Committee of the necessity of further discussing the Amendment. When figures were applied to a matter of this kind as the sole test some inconvenience must arise. They created an inelastic dividing line, and there must be hardship on one side or the other. If 200 were taken as the figure, inconvenience would result to the parishes which came up to 199, and equal inconvenience to those which reached 201. The Government seemed to consider that all parishes wore the same, and that a parish was a sort of mathematical figure with a village in the centre, and with all the parishioners at an equal distance from that centre. They seemed to think that a parish with 200 inhabitants must have a, certain area, and a parish with a greater number of inhabitants a larger area. The question of acreage ought really to be a greater factor in the settlement of the matter than the question of population. There were no two parishes which were exactly alike. He could quite understand that there might be many parishes having populations below 200 which would be most conveniently managed by Parish Councils. Such a parish would be one with an acreage of 500. A parish, however, with 500 inhabitants and tin acreage of 20,000 could hardly be said to come in the same category; and yet the Government said they would force such a parish to have a Parish Council. The only way in which the question could be settled conveniently was by inquiry on the spot. He was very much surprised that the right lion. Gentleman did not appear to have considered the wishes of the Executive Council of the County Councils Association in this matter. The opinion of that Council was that 500 should be the limit. That Council was not moved by any political influence, but was simply anxious that a good Bill should be passed. He hoped the Government would give the Committee some further assurance on the subject.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.At the 1287 request of the hon. Member I interpose, although I thought I had laid the views of the Government on this question very clearly before the House on Friday. Our position on this question is this: On Friday night we discussed the question whether there should be a power to have Parish Councils in any village at all without the consent of a parish meeting, and after that point was settled we discussed whether the limit should be 500. The Committee practically decided to reject the 500 limit. I have now moved to strike out 300, and to substitute 200, to which the hon. Member strongly objects. I should just like for one moment to recall the history of this alteration to the memory of the Committee, as there seems to be some little confusion as to how the matter stands. The Government originally proposed that the limit should be 300, and that there should be compulsory grouping below that limit. There were strong objections taken to the proposals of the Government. The first objection was to compulsory grouping. Members from all parts of the House said that, having regard to the feelings, jealousies, and antagonism existing between parishes, it would be unwise to force grouping on them. Of the 63 speeches delivered on the Second Heading, I doubt whether there were not at least 50 in which strong objection was not taken to grouping and in which I was not strongly urged to make a proposal reducing the figure from 300. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Bordesley Division, who is unquestionably an authority upon this subject, delivered a speech in which, after severely criticising the position which we had taken up with regard to the grouping of parishes, he went on to say that it would be better that parishes above 200 should have separate Parish Councils, and that none of the smaller parishes should be grouped without its consent. That is the extent of the proposal which the Government now makes. I should like to call attention to the Amendments on the Paper to show the difficulty in striking an exact line in this matter. There are Amendments down for 200, 500, 600, 1,000, and even for 100. I cannot help calling attention to two Amendments which indicate dissatisfaction with the 200 limit. There have been some re- 1288 marks made with reference to Members taking part in this Debate, describing them as "Cockneys," who we reignorant of rural life altogether; but it is a singular fact that the two Amendments which propose to go below 200 proceed from two hon. Members—one representing Lincolnshire and the other Somersetshire, counties widely apart—two hon. Members who are intimately associated with, and even Members of, the laud-owning class, and one of whom was formerly Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the holder of that office was practically Minister of Agriculture. Therefore, the Government, in taking the medium figure of 200, is not open to the criticism that it has gone too low, whereas the House is clearly of opinion that 300 is too high. In France, where the parish commune in its full development was a final unit of government, there are upwards of 36,000 communes, and 17,000 of these have a population of less than 500; 4,895 have a population of between 200 and 300; and 4,290 a population of between 300 and 400. Therefore, a very considerable number of the communes of France show a less figure than that which the Government now propose. References have also been made to the American precedent, and hon. Members have quoted from the book of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy to help their argument; but they have only referred to the New England townships, and not to other parts of America, where a different system prevails. Taking Ohio as a fairly typical State, I find they divide their villages into three grades. The first grade has a population of from 3,000 to 5,000, being very similar to our urban districts; the second grade, which are equivalent to the institutions the present Bill would set up, range from 200 to 3,000; and the third grade consists of places below 200. I give these two illustrations from countries where the system of local government has been developed to show that the figure of 200 is not too low. The Government have endeavoured to gather the opinions of the House on this subject. On the whole, our impression is that the majority of the House would prefer the figure of 200 to 300, and upon that I veuture to ask the Committee to come to a speedy decision, the matter having, I submit, been now amply discussed.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)I am sure there is no desire to unduly prolong the discussion; hut I must point out that two entirely distinct questions are involved in the Amendment— questions separate in themselves and only to he decided by very different considerations. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the fact that on the Second Reading a very general protest was raised because the limit of 300 was too high. But too high for what? We thought then, and we think still, that 300 was too high if you were going to compel amalgamation of parishes with a population falling below that limit. If the problem was still before us whether we should compel amalgamation below 300, or whether the limit should be reduced still further, I would hold now, as I held then, that 200 is better than 300, and that 100 would be better than 200. But there is quite another question involved, and that is the point at which we are going to compel a parish to have its own Parish Council, and on that point I think a high limit better than a low one. What I would press the right hon. Gentleman to consider is whether he could not fix two limits—one for the purposes of the first sub-section of his Amendment, and the other for the purposes of the second—taking a high limit below which it should be voluntary on the part of a parish to have a Parish Council or not as it pleased, and a low limit for the purposes of amalgamation.
§ * MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)said, that he had an Amendment on the Paper proposing to reduce the limit to 100; but he did not intend to move it because, after the explanation of the President of the Local Government Board, he believed a limit of 200 would be quite sufficient, as no parish was to be grouped against its will. He would only urge on the right hon. Gentleman that in line 2 of his Amendment he should insert "shall" instead of "may," so that the County Council would have no discretionary power in regard to giving a Council to any parish that desired it. The question as to whether a higher limit was better than a lower limit should not be looked at entirely from the point of view of the individual parish, but should be considered from the point of view whether it was really desirable that they should have parishes of large areas, managed 1290 only by parish meetings instead of by Parish Councils. He thought, from his practical experience of village life, that it would be impossible for large parish meetings to manage the affairs of the parish, and he was, therefore, in favour of providing that every parish with a population over 200 should have a Parish Council.
§ * SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)said, he was strongly of opinion that the parish meeting was more representative and a far better thing for the purpose of parish government than a Parish Council. There was much the same sort of difference as between primary and secondary evidence. The parish meeting would be able to give primary evidence of the intention and will of the whole of the inhabitants of the parish, as represented by the parochial electors, while if the system of representation were adopted they would have a Parish Council, which was undoubtedly secondary evidence. The Government proposed to drive the villages away from the simpler method of the parish meeting to the more complicated and indirect method of the Parish Council. Surely if it were only a difference between 200 and 300 there could he no objection in principle in allowing a parish of 300 inhabitants, which only meant 60 voters, according to the calculation of the President of the Local Government Board himself, to have a parish meeting rather than a Parish Council. A considerable number of the voters would be enabled to go to the meetings for several reasons, and, therefore, the parish meeting would always be of a size to discuss conveniently the parish affairs. He therefore thought the limit of 300 should remain in the Bill, and that parishes below that figure should be allowed to choose for themselves what form of local government they desired. The Bill would be all the more acceptable if the people were allowed to make their own choice. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the case of France. But France did not at all help the right hon. Gentleman by way of comparison. Franco had no District Councils at all. The system in France was the parish at one end and the County Council at the other. There was no intermediate body like our Boards of Guardians. And then the financial arrangements of France were quite different from the financial arrange- 1291 ments of England. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to the method of providing money in France. The County Council Association, which consisted of representative men from every county, and was not of a Party character at all, was strongly of opinion that the limit should he 500; hut as the House had decided against that figure, at least the figure of 300 contained in the Bill should be allowed to stand.
§ * THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,) Glasgow, Bridgetonsaid, he desired to say one or two words on this subject, rather in the character of a private Member than as a Member of the Government. He might say, first, that the Amendment now before the Committee had been carefully considered, and undoubtedly the Government would not depart from it. He was not going to renew the discussion of the other day as to the merits of a Parish Council as compared with a parish meeting; but one thing he observed in that Debate was that almost all the Members who had spoken were Representatives of Southern, Western, and Eastern Counties. He did not think any Member had spoken who was conversant with the Northern Agricultural Counties of England, which were immensely interested in the Bill, and were inhabited by a population admirably qualified to work it. In the great County of Northumberland, which was only a strong case amongst the Northern Counties, unless this limit of 200 wore adopted the Bill would be absolutely useless. There were about 550 parishes in Northumberland. Of these, all but 100 were under 300, and, of those villages above 300, a very large number, indeed, were mining villages and villages situated in urban rather than in rural districts of Northumberland. He was speaking from experience when he said that, even if the limit of 200 were established, there would be districts in Northumberland where, for 100 square miles, there would not be a Parish Council, for he did not think the Parish Councils would be freely given to the parishes by the Northumberland County Council. Unless they fixed the limit at 200, there would be excellent centres of municipal life and administration in Northumberland excluded from the benefits of the Bill, and he could name several of these parishes which 1292 were admirably qualified to exercise the Bill, and which were anxious to exercise it, and which would be able to exercise it, if the limit was fixed at 200 and not 300. He ventured to say, in conclusion, that in Northumberland, if his right hon. Friend's Amendment were not accepted, the Bill, though called a Parish Councils Bill, would not be a Parish Councils Bill at all.
§ MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)said, he did not understand what, the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that the Bill would be useless in Northumberland unless the limit of 200, proposed by the President of the Local Government Board, was adhered to. The Government had told them that there was an ardent desire for the Bill in the villages. But under the Bill, whether the number was 200, or 300, or 500, such villages would be able to get Parish Councils if they wished for them, and would be able to exercise the powers conferred by the Bill.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANOnly if the County Council wished.
§ MR. W. LONGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the County Council would go in opposition to the wishes of their constituents, expressed in the village meeting? [Cries of "Yes!"] Then what was the use of this proposed extension of local government by Parish Councils, elected on similar lines, under similar conditions, and by similar constituents, as the County Councils, which, according to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, did not represent the feelings of the people? Since Friday he had had opportunities in the West of Ireland of discussing the proposals of the Bill with gentlemen of different shades of political opinion, and he could say that he had converted some of the strongest supporters of the Government in that part of the country. They had assured him that universally there was the strongest possible desire that in the smaller parishes the people should be left to have a Council or a meeting as they thought best. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland had said that the mining villages, where there was a need of Parish Councils, would not be allowed to have them if the Amendment were not accepted.
§ SIR G. TREVELYANI said the mining villages, forming as they do the bulk of the villages of 300, will have the Parish Councils as a right.
§ MR. W. LONGasked whether the right hon. Gentleman contended that the County Councils would not allow the small villages to have Parish Councils. If the right hon. Gentleman took that stand, and said he did not believe that the County Council of Northumberland was representative of the county, that was a very grave charge against representative government, and was an argument against the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the Northumberland County Council, though elected by the popular vote, did not represent the views of the people of Northumberland; and having made that charge against representative institutions, the right hon. Gentleman further said that the County Council would say to the villages— "Although you asked for a Parish Council at an open public meeting, we will not allow you to have it; we will insist on putting the villages in the same position as the county—that is, of being represented by a system that will not represent the electors." A more illogical proposition had never been made. The difference between the two sides of the House was not great with regard to the numbers, but the difference as regarded the principle was considerable. It was much greater than the mere distinction between 300 and 200. Hon. Members on his side of the House said—"Create the machinery, give these people the power to govern themselves, and leave it to those in the smaller centres to say which number they will select. You can perfectly well trust them to decide for themselves, and there will be a much better prospect of success if you leave the people to say for themselves whether it shall be by Parish Council or parish meeting." The supporters of the Government could not trust them to decide for themselves, but forced it on them, and in doing that they were not taking the best steps to make this system of parochial government a success in the future. However, the Government was responsible for the course it took. The President of the Local Government Board told them just now that in the proposals he had made he thought he had fallen in with all the 1294 propositions which had been made in the House. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman quoted in support of his view the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) had an Amendment on the Paper in favour of 100. The right hon. Gentleman had, no doubt, listened to the views of those on his own side of House, but the great majority—the Member for Great Grimsby excepted—on the Opposition side had from the commencement protested that the utmost possible liberty should be given to the smaller communities to settle the question. The difficulty about the number of 300 arose from the fact that they believed the compulsory grouping would be made the law below that number, but now they had abolished compulsory grouping the case was different. Whether the Government looked at the matter from the point of view of the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons or of making the measure a success in the country, he was certain that they would be more likely to attain their object if they endeavoured to meet the views expressed in all quarters of the House in favour of giving the utmost latitude to the localities.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, this was a very practical question, and one which would have to be decided by the practical experience of hon. Members in different parts of the House. Hon. Members from one county could not lay down a rule which would hold good in another county. Speaking from his experience of Lincolnshire only, he believed the people there would not to satisfied with the limit of 500. He thought if they had their choice they would go below 200. He agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that it was a very difficult question, and they could only settle it by a compromise. He believed that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the right hon. Gentleman had fixed upon the best figure, that of 200, for this particular purpose. The Leader of the Opposition threw out a suggestion with regard to grouping, but grouping was entirely a secondary consideration now. But there was another question which the Government ought to give consideration to. There were a large number of parishes below 200 and over 100 which had as large an acreage 1295 and electorate as those above 200, and he thought if they decided after a parish meeting that they would have a Parish Council, they ought to have that Parish Council without the County Council having a veto at all. He believed the true solution of the difficulty was to divide parishes into three parts. First, those proposed by the Minister in charge of the Bill, above 200, who should be statutably entitled to a Parish Council; secondly, to allow those between 100 and 200 to have a Parish Council, if they wished, by an order of the County Council; and, thirdly, to give discretion to the County Council with reference to those below 100. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the suggestions of altering the word "may" into "shall."
§ SIR F. MILNERsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had endeavoured to meet the wishes of hon. Members by reducing the number to 200, but, so far as he was concerned, he would much prefer the number left at 300. He did not think that any Member had a closer interest in rural life than he himself had, or was in touch with a larger number of the rural populations, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that a lively feeling of resentment had sprung up owing to the non possumus attitude which he took up on Friday as to enlarging the area of population where local option was to be permitted. An enormous proportion of parishes with a population of 3C0 or 400 warmly resented being saddled, whether they liked it or not, with a Parish Council, when they considered that the parish meeting would meet all the requirements of the case. He hoped that even now the right hon. Gentleman would think fit to extend the privilege of local option to parishes certainly up 300—he would say parishes under 500. In doing so, lie would meet the wishes of the people principally concerned in the passing of this Bill. The Bill would never be considered satisfactory by the rural population unless the right hon. Gentleman considerably extended the area of population where local option was to be permitted or not, and he urged the right hon. Gentleman not to pay any attention to the hon. Member for Peterborough, who knew nothing about rural life, but to pay attention to the Member for Wood- 1296 bridge, who had urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the very points which he was himself anxious to press, and who knew a good deal about rural life. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not ruin his Bill by insisting upon the attitude which he took up on Friday last.
§ MR. T. ROBINSON (Gloucester),who was indistinctly heard, said, it seemed to him hon. Members opposite wanted as little of the Bill as possible, and desired to cut it down. He thought if the Bill was adopted in a parish where there was a small majority, it would cause friction and bad feeling. It seemed to him also that the parish meeting had broken down, and people had found they could not attend. Therefore, they asked the privilege to be allowed to elect proper representatives, who could regularly attend to their business, and manage it for them. That was a very reasonable request, and one to which the House ought to be willing to accede. He admitted that in very small parishes up to 200 some different arrangement should be allowed, and he understood that that was what the Government aimed at. He himself thought the limit of 200 was the proper one, and if it was not conceded great disappointment would be caused. The Government had hit upon the right limit, and, for his part, he would support them.
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERThe question which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby has raised is a very important one, and we shall be prepared to consider it when the Amendment is brought on. I think when we come to the clause, we shall be able, perhaps, to meet his views in that direction. I understand his views to be that as between 100 and 200, if the parish meeting requires a Parish Council, the parish meeting shall have it. I want the House to decide now as between 200 and 300. I hope the House will now come to a decision.
§ MR. BILL (Staffordshire, Leek),who was indistinctly heard, said, he would like to say a few words on behalf of a certain class of parishes, which had hitherto received scant attention. He alluded to Poor Law parishes with no village, but with a very large area, and a very scattered population. He contended that with regard to those Poor Law 1297 parishes, if the Government proposal were carried, they would be compulsorily establishing Councils with large powers, most of which would never be exercised, and which, therefore, would be practically valueless. In other words, the Government would be setting up a Nasmyth hammer in order to crack a nut. He thought the Poor Law parish should have the right of deciding for themselves whether they would or would not set up the machinery. A measure of this sort, in order to be successful, ought to be elastic and adaptable to the varying needs and requirements in different parts of the country. He did not think it would increase the credit of the Government with the rural population if hereafter the spectacle should present itself of a parish meeting being held perfunctorily once a year and electing Parish Councillors with large powers, but with no opportunity of using them. Some future President of the Local Government Board would doubtless sweep away those Parish Councils as the "decrepit survivals" which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of when he introduced the measure, and would restore to the parish the initiative of managing their own affairs. As a Staffordshire Member, he asked the Government to stick to the limit of 300, and, if possible, to increase it.
MR. H. T. KNATCIIBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham),said, if the Government intended to propose the Amendment in its present shape, he would be compelled to vote against it, for the reason that its effect would be still further to increase the number of parishes upon which they were about to thrust, compulsorily, legislation which he was convinced many of them did not want. For his part, he would be inclined to support any Amendment which would give a free choice in this matter to the greatest number of parishes. He wanted to give an opportunity to as many parishes as possible to escape from what he believed would be a most intolerable financial burden. Ho could not understand why the Government should oppose what appeared to him to be a fair and reasonable proposition. If the Government and the supporters really believed that there was an ardent desire on the part of the rural population for these Councils, why did 1298 they not give them an opportunity to choose for themselves? He could not help thinking that the Government must be well aware of the calculations put before the House by the hon. Member for Islington—calculations as to the financial effects of the Bill which had not been met. He believed if the Government insisted on the 200 limit they would create great dissatisfaction, and the Bill would prove to be utterly unworkable. He himself thought a reasonable compromise might be come to, and he would suggest the number of 400 or 500, the adoption of which would facilitate the passage of the Bill.
§ MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)said that, so far as he was personally concerned, he certainly favoured the idea of a high line. The moment there was a Council the parish meeting would cease to have any power except to elect the Council. The success of a measure of this kind, particularly in the smaller parishes, must largely depend upon taking measures in the Bill to keep the population in touch with the governmental proceedings of the parish. Of the two numbers mentioned he preferred 300. He wished particularly that where there was no Council there should be a committee. That committee would be appointed by the parish meeting once a year, but its powers would be simply delegated to it. It should follow on the lines of the County Council and report quarterly. He hoped some information would be given them as to the creation of a committee where there was no Council.
§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)said, the Government evidently did not; intend to make the slightest concession in this matter to hon. Members on his side of the House or even hon. Members on their own side who had ventured to oppose the Government proposals. The hon. Member for Gloucester had said that there was a strong feeling in favour of this Bill in country parishes, but he must confess that he himself had arrived at an entirely different conclusion. If, however, there was a general strong feeling in favour of the Government proposal, why did they not put it to the test and ascertain whether there was any such feeling? The fact was, the Government were afraid of their own Bill. They were afraid if 1299 their proposals were laid before the people they would not be accepted. An hon. Member had spoken of parishes above a certain limit having Parish Councils of right. The fact was, they were going to have Parish Councils by force whether they liked them or not. He ventured to raise a protest against this system of coercion. When this Amendment was passed all possibility of free action on the part of the parishes would be done away with.
§ MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)remarked that, as there was an Amendment at the bottom of the Paper in the name of the President of the Local Government Board which contained, to a very large extent, the principle of option, ho thought it would now be worth while for the Government to consider whether it would not be better to revert to their original number of 300 rather than 200? The wrong principle of grouping having been done away with—at least he hoped so—and the principle of option having been introduced, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised if he reverted to the original number of 300. He was very glad to see the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, to which he had referred, introduced the principle of option, which he had no doubt would meet with the approval of the Committee.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)deprecated the use of strong language in regard to this measure and the action of the Government, and hoped they should be able to conduct their discussions in a businesslike way. The point at issue was one of practical convenience. The question they were asked to decide was what should be the limit above which there must be Parish Councils. That was the single question before the Committee. The Government originally proposed 300, above which there must be a Parish Council, and they now proposed 200 as the limit. Inasmuch as they once had one view and now had another, there could not be any matter of life and death in the decision as to reverting to what was their first idea. He would suggest that the question of deciding what should be the limit above which they must have a Parish Council depended very much indeed upon what they were going to do 1300 with the parishes below that limit. If they proposed to deal with them in one fashion they would favour the higher limit, and if they dealt with them in another fashion they would favour the lower limit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton argued strongly in favour of the lower limit, because he said, if such a limit was not adopted, in Northumberland the County Council would take no favourable action in regard to allowing Parish Councils in the parishes between the two limits. Whether that were true or not he did not know, but he would suggest that there was a way of dealing with this question which would meet with the views of his right hon. Friend and at the same time allow the latitude which was originally offered to the particular parishes—namely, this: Suppose they had the 300 limit above which there must be a Parish Council, and below that adopted the valuable suggestion of the right hon. Member for Halifax and say there should always be a parish committee, and again there should always be, if a parish parish meeting asked for it, a Parish Council—not leaving it dependent upon the County Council, but done with the consent of the parish meeting? The parish meeting should by itself be able to decide. If they allowed that principle they would have perfect freedom of action on the part of the authority, who would have a choice. If they were below 300 they would have a parish committee with a parish meeting once a quarter, or a Parish Council if the parish meeting asked for it, and above the 300 limit a Parish Council as of course. Between 200 and 300 it would be dependent on the character of the parish whether it was desirable there should bo a Parish Council or not. If a parish were scattered over a great extent of area it must depend upon many considerations, and it would be very rash to lay down a rule that they should be universally treated alike. Above 300 let them say there should be a Parish Council, and below 300 give the parish itself the power of electing a committee and of determining by its own option whether it should have a Council or not. If his right hon. Friend would look favourably on that view, he thought lie would then, in reverting to his original proposition of 300, do no injustice to parishes below 1301 the limit, because such parishes would be allowed the freedom of adopting one or other organisation as to them might seem best.
§ MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)said, the President of the Local Government Board was anxious to come to a decision, and he did not wish to stop him; but, as the right hon. Gentleman's Party was willing to sit over Christmas, he might allow hon. Members half-a-dozen words on the subject. The agricultural district he (Major Rasch) represented had many small poor parishes which were very scattered, and ho wondered himself they existed at all in these times. The difficulty he wished to bring home to the right hon. Gentleman was this: In these small poor parishes it, would be extremely hard to find intelligent men able to sit on the Parish Councils, because the moil were not there; they did not exist. If the right hon. Gentleman knew the decorous apathy with which his Bill was received in the Eastern Counties, and the part he (Major Rasch) represented in particular, ho would not be sanguine about getting together a Parish Council in every square mile.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derbyobserved that the question now before the Committee was to determine whether or not above 200 there should always be a Parish Council, or whether that figure should be 300. That was really the question. They had discussed this—be would not say too long, but a considerable time—on a former occasion, and he thought that all had been said on both sides; therefore, he would venture to suggest they should now take a Division on whether 200 or 300 should remain.
§ MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)thought that the parishes within a certain reasonable limit—and he did not think that even the limit of 300 was sufficient—should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they would incur the expense of an election for a County Council or not. He knew this was a subject which was attracting attention in the country. The smaller parishes were asking what they were to gain by this Bill and what it would cost. On Friday night he happened to be at a meeting in a parish where the population was just a little over 300, 1302 and he took pains to inquire what the rateable value was. Ho found that 1d., the limit proposed by this Bill, would enable them to raise £5 14s. 4d. He put it to them whether, if they had the expense of an election to pay out of that every year, and they had possibly to consider an increase of salary for an Assistant Overseer, and they had to provide pens, ink, and stationery, they would not have to increase their budget to put that Council into operation. He should support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal; but at the same time he was quite certain, in the first place, that the limit ought even to be a higher one than 300, and he felt also that if the Government persisted in this Amendment, and insisted on forcing upon every parish which had a population exceeding 200 the expense and worry of a Parish Council, they would do an infinity of harm.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 134;, Noes 203.—(Division List, No.322.)
§ Word "two" inserted.
§ MR. COURTNEY,on a point of procedure, said there was an Amendment down in the name of the right hon. Member for Halifax, which came in at the same point as the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board, but the former Amendment being a continuation of the sentence, and not a new sentence as was that of the President, of the Local Government Board, he thought the Amendment of the Member for Halifax ought to be considered first.
§ MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)proposed the following Amendment:—
In page 1, line 10, after the word "upwards." to insert the words, "and there shall lie a parish committee annually elected by the parish meeting for every parish which has a less population than 200.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERsympathised with the object of his right hon. Friend, and with reference to the Amendment 1303 there were only two points he would put for his consideration before accepting it, as he did accept it in principle. First, in the matter of form the Amendment should come in in Clause 18 defining the powers of the parish meeting when there was no Parish Council. The second point was whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it was destrable to make this election compulsory? He proposed that there should be a Parish Committee, and that it should be elected by the parish meeting. The Amendment he should submit would be this: The parish meeting might appoint a committee of their number, and delegate to that committee any powers and duties it thought fit. He put that for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. The Government were quite in favour of the principle of a committee, but he thought himself it would be better to make it an optional arrangement and not compulsory. He would move this when the proper time came.
§ MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was perfectly willing to accept this, and he would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved the following Amendment:—
In page 1, line 10, at end, insert "Provided that when the number of parochial electors for any parish is less than 40, the provisions of this Act shall apply to such parish as if it had a population of less than 200.
The hon. Member said, that 200 had been accepted as the point at which the line should be drawn, and what he desired to call attention to was this: there were some parishes in which there were certain institutions—for instance, schools and lunatic asylums—which raised the number of the population very considerably without raising the voting strength of the population under the Bill. It seemed somewhat absurd that they should enact by Statute that there must be a Parish Council for a parish where, perhaps, there were only 10 qualified electors, because inside that parish there happened to be one of these institutions. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would see the propriety of providing for such cases in this clause or on some subsequent stage of the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 10, at end, insert "Provided that where the number of parochial electors for any parish is less than 40 the provisions of this Act shall apply to such parish as if it had a population of less than 200."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)said, although there was a great deal to be said in favour of such a proposal in order to meet the case of asylums, it was a great deal too early in the Bill to put it here, inasmuch as the question of the electorate had not been settled.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, they must first ascertain the number of electors.
MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said, he did not see what the number of electors had to do with the question.
§ * MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)said, ho thought that the number of the electors ought to be in proportion to the population.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. H. H. FOWLER moved—
In page 1, line 10, after "upwards," to insert:—
Provided that an order of the County Council in pursuance of Part III. of this Act may
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)said, he begged to move as an Amendment, in line 1, to leave out "an order of." He proposed this Amendment with the object of raising the question whether provision should not be made for the grouping of parishes the population of which was absurdly small. He had a series of Amendments for the purpose of carrying out this view; but as ho feared hon. Members on the other (the Opposition) side of the House, and many on this (the Government) side, were opposed to it, 1305 he would have little hope of prevailing upon the Government to accept it. He would, however, take the opportunity of stating why he thought a mistake had been made. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had executed a great change of front with regard to grouping. When he introduced the Bill he proposed to enforce grouping on parishes under 300. The County Councils Association, whoso opinions on the Bill should carry great weight, objected very strongly to the proposals in the Bill, but they did not go so far as the right hon. Gentleman had gone now.
§ SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)rose to Order. He wished to know upon which line of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment this Amendment was?
§ SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, on line 1. The meaning of the Amendment suggested by the County Councils Association was clear; they were founded on the principle that there should be no grouping without consent, except, for special reasons, and they contemplated as a special reason an absurdly small size. It did seem to him, unless they had some system of compulsory grouping, they would not find a solution of the difficulty in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. He was disposed to think that when a landlord was the owner of a single parish—where the whole property belonged to one man—there might be objection to grouping. He came to the parishes in which there were only two or three householders. In such cases the machinery of the parish meeting would be wholly inadequate. They had only to look at matters as they stood at present to find eases of the kind; the difficulties that existed with regard to these parishes would be increased by the machinery of the Bill, which, as he had said, was wholly inadequate to cases of that kind. He wanted to avail of that occasion to ask two or three questions which the right hon. Gentleman could answer at any time that he might deem convenient. In the first place, he wanted to know what would become of the charities of grouped parishes? The right hon. Gentleman might say such charities were protected by the present law; but the present law did not meet the case, so far as this Bill was concerned. 1306 Some of the parishes which might be grouped by the action of the Comity Councils were very small, but many of them had very valuable charities— enormously so in proportion to their extent. On the other hand, the parishes with which they might be grouped might have very small charities. He did not know how it was proposed to meet the difficulty. It was not met by the Bill as it stood. Another question was this: By Clause 30, Section 8. the powers of the County Council for the purpose of the clause would expire in 12 months, and the Amendment gave no powers in the matter to the Local Government Board. What was to be done after 12 months had elapsed? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what was to happen then? Those were his questions; and he would again press upon the Committee that some provision should be made for the grouping of parishes that were absurdly small. He begged to move his Amendment to the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 1, to leave out the words "an order of."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that it was in consequence of communications made to him from all parts of the House that be made this proposal. The County Councils would have largo powers to deal with the small parishes. With regard to the charities, he had put down an Amendment to Clause 30 which would provide for the preservation of the separate charities of each parish. With regard to the further question put by the right hon. Baronet, he hoped it might be allowed to stand until they reached a clause upon which it could be more properly raised. The Amendment had little to do with the question of grouping, and he hoped it would be withdrawn.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he did not propose to trouble the Committee further upon this question. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman would make a statement on Clause 30. They would expect that. He thought they ought to 1307 know what was to happen after the 12 months had expired.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby) moved—
In line 2, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "and," in line 5, in order to insert the words, "(a) shall if the parish meeting of a rural parish, having a population of one hundred or upwards, so resolves, provide for establishing a Parish Council in the parish, and may, with the consent of the parish meeting of any rural parish having a population of less than one hundred, provide for establishing a Parish Council in the parish.
He thought a fair solution of a difficult problem would be three classes of parishes under the Bill—those over 200 population, which would have a statutory claim to a Parish Council; those between 100 and 200 population, which would have the right to demand a Parish Council from the County Council; and those under 100 population, which would have a Parish Council with the consent or at the suggestion of the County Council.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
In line 2, to leave out from the word "Act," to the word "and," in line 5, in order to insert the words,—"(a) shall if the parish meeting of a rural parish, having a population of one hundred or upwards, so resolves, provide for establishing a Parish Council in the parish, and may, with the consent of the parish meeting of any rural parish having a population of less than one hundred, provide for establishing a Parish Council in the parish."—(Mr. Heneage.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, this Amendment carried out a proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage) and the right hon. Member for Bodmin.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)No, no.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, in that ease he must have misunderstood his right hon. Friend. At all events, he understood the Amendment to be a reasonable one, and he was prepared to accept it.
§ MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)said, the Amendment might be very satisfactory; but he would like to suggest that, unless some majority at the parish meeting was agreed upon, absolute power might be in the hands of a few electors to commit the parish to a Parish 1308 Council. There should be a proviso to the Amendment requiring that the resolution should be passed by a certain majority of the electors present at the parish meeting. It might be possible to have a meeting of the parish which would be a very insignificant and unrepresentative one.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThere must be a poll.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, he did not understand that that was so.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThere must be a poll if the meeting is not unanimous.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, in that case the meeting should be a representative one. Forty people in a parish might pass a resolution unanimously, and impose great expense on the parish. Unless some provision was made for a majority he would oppose the Amendment. It would be far better to leave the matter to the County Council. This, at any rate, would ensure publicity. He hoped the Committee would agree to a two-thirds majority being adopted. In that case he would support the Amendment.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)said, an Amendment of his further down on the Paper might be substituted for that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby, namely—
No resolution of the parish meeting that any Act be adopted for the parish shall be deemed to be carried unless it be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting, or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish.This would give a majority of the electors, and would carry out the wish that had been expressed. He would point out that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed only to deal with the parishes by consent. He thought there might also be power of dissent—if the parishes wished in future to withdraw from the Parish Council system.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, full notice of the parish meeting must be given for all business to be transacted thereat, and, therefore, every elector would have the means of ascertaining what was going on. If nobody thought it worth while to go to the meeting to oppose the creation of a Parish Council, he saw no necessity for putting the parish to the expense of a poll, if any one man went and demanded a poll. The Amendment met 1309 the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), which was that he should lay down lines of population with respect to the exercise of the right of creating Parish Councils. He would not enter into the question of the poll. It was another question altogether. But he thought he was justified in accepting this Amendment.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, he had not been able to ascertain the terms of the Amendment.
§ MR. HENEAGEIt is on the Paper. [Cries of "No!"]
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, if it was on the Paper he would like if the right hon. Gentleman would tell him the page.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, page 21.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, the Amendment on the Paper was an entirely different one from that which the right lion. Gentleman had read.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Amendment was printed on page 21, but he had struck out the words given there because he understood they would not be acceptable. Those words provided for a two-thirds majority. What he had proposed was—
To leave out from "Act," in line 2, to end of line 4, and insert.—"(a) shall, if the parish meeting of a rural parish having a population of one hundred and upwards so resolves, provide for establishing a Parish Council in the parish, and may, with the consent of the parish meeting of any rural parish having a population of less than one hundred, provide for establishing a Parish Council in the parish.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, the position then was, that there was an Amendment on the Paper which was not moved, and there was an Amendment moved which was not on the Paper, and not only was it not on the Paper, but it introduced quite a new feature and a different method of procedure. He objected most strongly to the acceptance of an Amendment which might lead to a result that would saddle the parish with expense. Some precaution should be taken with regard to the number of electors present at each meeting. He did not know whether the President of the Local Government Board had considered that a meeting might be hastily called together— there might not be due notice given of it. There was no provision for a quorum, and nothing to prevent, by an accidental circumstance, the taking of a scratch division. He would ask whether 1310 provision would be made to prevent such hasty action?
§ MR. J. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)said, he had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with the point which had been raised, and he would take that opportunity of moving on the present Amendment to insert words—
§ MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)said, he would like to point out that the President of the Local Government Board was not carrying out the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. The Amendment was on totally different lines. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Heneage) had put one Amendment on the Paper, but he had moved not that but a different one. He did not think there need be any objection to the Amendment if it included words which would prevent the decision being arrived at by hole-and-corner meetings. For his (Mr. E. Stanhope's) part, he was willing to accept the Amendment if it contained a proviso for a two-thirds majority.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)said, he would suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman could not agree to the proposal made he should insert words to the effect that a poll should be taken at the parish meeting as to whether the Council was desired or not.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)said, he did not quite understand whether the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill accepted the two-thirds majority or not. Upon that point the whole question turned. They should understand what the proposal was. Notice was to be given of the parish meeting, but that meeting might consist of only one man, for there was no provision for a quorum, and that man might move and carry a resolution which would impose great trouble and expense on the people. He would point out that the same difficulty arose in connection with the School Board. The right hon. Gentleman said that as soon as notice was given they might have their meeting, though they might not have a quorum—that all they had to do was to guard themselves by having the notice. Surely the right hon. Gentle- 1311 man did not propose to put in the Bill words which would bring about such an extraordinary anomaly as that.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, it would be most undesirable for a snatch vote to be taken on a thing of that sort. He would not assent to the principle of a two-thirds majority; but he would agree to a provision declaring that the resolution to have a Parish Council should not be taken except on a poll. He would undertake to put words in the Bill to that effect.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, that was a concession, no doubt; but he failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman was opposed to the two-thirds majority. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's belief in the safeguards was not well-founded. Those hon. Members who knew much about rural life knew perfectly well that whatever notices were put up there were a large number of the people of the parish who would never see them. Of course, in towns where notices were put up in certain places it was the custom of the inhabitants to look at them in order to see what was going on. But that practice did not obtain in country villages. They would not be able to get the country labourer who lived, it might be, a mile or a mile and a-half away, to go to the village to see what was going to take place at the village meeting. Many of these men never went into the village at all except, perhaps, on Sunday to church or chapel. They did not visit it for their work or for shopping. The right hon. Gentleman said there should be notice given and a poll should take place, and that that ought to satisfy hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. But he (Mr. W. Long) would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that a poll meant a great deal of expense. What would be simpler than to say that the parish should have power to decide what course should be taken, and, in order that the meeting should be representative, to say that the resolution should be passed by a majority of at least two-thirds? Surely, if there were only 100 people affected, it was not too much to ask that there should be unanimity or, at any rate, a preponderance of opinion amongst them in favour of the resolution. That they would secure by putting in the two-thirds. He admitted that a poll was better than nothing, hut he thought it 1312 hard to impose on small rural districts the expense of methods which, though they might be well suited to towns, were ill suited to villages.
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had gone a considerable length in order to meet hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said that the ratepayers would not attend the parish meeting in large numbers—that they would not walk a mile to look at the notices. That was hardly consistent with what they were told as to the desirability of having parish meetings. Hon. Members opposite must either sit on one stool or the other —either the parish meeting was to be a real thing, as they had often been told it would be, or it was to be a sham, the people neglecting to attend it.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, this would be a parish meeting called to supersede the parish meeting, and in all likelihood would be called by persons who were not in agreement with the majority of the parishioners.
§ MR. ACLANDsaid, the meeting would be called, like all other parish meetings, by ordinary notice. The President of the Local Government Board had gone a long way to meet the point urged by the late Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), and the hon. Member who had urged a point which affected his (Mr. Acland's) Department. He agreed that hole-in-the-corner meetings were most objectionable. It was almost impossible to go behind the votes given by the small bodies which, in some cases, they had had to carry out the Education Act. If they had a poll every member of the parish would know what he was doing.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he and his Friends did not want a hole-in-the-corner meeting, and they did not want to put the parish to the expense of a poll in these cases. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not desire to have a two-thirds majority. He would propose, therefore, that the resolution should be carried at a meeting representing a clear majority of the electors. That would afford some security against a hole-in-the-corner meeting.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEWho are the electors to be.? If the non-resident 1313 freeholders are to be entitled to vote it might be difficult to get a majority of the electors.
§ MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)said, that his experience of towns meetings was that they were very sparsely attended, and that when polls were demanded, only a tithe of the electors took part in them. That would seem to indicate that it would be well to require a two-thirds majority. On the other hand, if a two-thirds majority of the electors had been required, say, in the town he represented, they would never have been able to dispose of the business connected with some very important measures which had been passed. On the whole, he thought it would be well to adopt the proposal of the Government for a poll even if the result should be that few electors would vote.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)said, he still thought his Amendment on page 39 of the Amendments would meet the case. It was as follows:—
No resolution of the parish meeting that any Act be adopted for the parish shall be deemed to he carried unless it be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting, or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he could not consent to that proposal, and if it were pressed would take the sense of the Committee upon it. He had endeavoured to meet hon. Gentlemen opposite as fairly as he could. There was the difficulty which the right hon. Baronet had pointed out, that they had not vet settled what the electorate was to be. Absent voters might be put to considerable disadvantage. They only wanted to ascertain what the view of the parish was, and by having a poll the people would vote or they would refrain from doing so, being satisfied with what was going to be done. He could see nothing fairer than that there should be a poll.
§ MR JEFFREYSstrongly objected to a poll being taken, because of the expense to the parish. He had thought that the President of the Local Government Board had agreed to the suggestion that the resolution should be carried at a meeting at which a majority of the electors were present. ["No, no!"] Would the right hon. Gentleman the 1314 Member for Great Grimsby consent to so amend his proposal?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that to agree to such an Amendment as that would be to impose a condition upon a parish meeting which was not imposed on any other assembly in the world. Why this extreme jealousy of the majority of the meeting? Why put this extra and unnecessary obstacle in the way of the adoption of a Parish Council? There was a great deal to be said against the trouble and expense of a poll, but in this case it would only be necessary once. The other night hon. Members opposite were arguing for a system of parish government which would have led to endless polls. If the government were to be by parish meeting a poll might be demanded whenever an important step was to Vie taken.
§ MR. J. GRANT LAWSONwished to draw attention to the 7th clause of the Bill, which said that wherever a specific majority was at present required for putting in force one of the adoptive Acts a like majority should be required at the parish meeting. So that the principle the Government objected to was already contained in the Bill.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to object to the two-thirds majority, but that principle was not a new one even so far as the Bill was concerned. The adoptive Acts were full of it. There was not one of them that did not contain it. The Lighting and Baths and Washhouses and Public Improvement Acts required that a majority of two-thirds of the ratepayers should be present before they could be put into operation. He failed to understand why there should be such determined opposition on the part of the Government to the principle in the case of the resolution to establish a Parish Council. He did not wish to create obstacles that did not exist in other cases; but when he found that this obstacle did exist in other cases he could not for the life of him sec why it should not be applied in the case of the establishment of the Council that was to put the other Acts into operation. He would ask to have the Amendment read over, so that hon. Members might see where further Amendment was desirable.
§ MR. JEFFREYSsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared that deciding these matters in parish meetings would cause great expense. He (Mr. Jeffreys) denied that such would be the case. The Vestry meetings which now took place did not lead to expense. They were allowed the use of the parish schoolroom without charge. The method proposed by the Government, however, would be a costly one. Would it not be better, instead of having a poll, to say that to carry the resolution it should be necessary to have a majority of the voters present?
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that parish meetings involved a poll. Under the existing system of Vestries polls were of frequent occurrence.
§ MR. BARTLEYsaid, that under the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board they would have this anomaly: that they would require a two-thirds majority to put in force the adoptive Acts, but only a single majority to carry the resolution to bring into existence the authority that was to establish those adoptive Acts. Surely it was more important to establish a Council than to adopt these Acts. There was a great difference between a borough and a parish. People would sometimes find it difficult to attend a meeting in a parish. Take Saturday night, for instance, when there was a storm raging. People from a distance would not have attended, and the meeting held on such a night would have been a more accidental meeting. In a town where the people all lived close together the circumstances would be different. He hoped the Committee would divide on this point.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON[Cries of "Divide!"] asked whether he was right in understanding that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said that there should be a poll in every case? ["Yes!"] But there might be a majority of the electors present. Two-thirds of the parishioners might meet and unanimously decide upon having a Parish Council. In that case what would be the use of having a poll?
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, an hour ago they had decided that in every parish down to one having a population of 200 a Parish Council should be obligatory, and yet it was now proposed that the assent of a two-thirds majority of the electors should be required in a case where the population was, say, 199.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment amended.
§ MR. J. G. LAWSONsaid, he wished to move to add at the end of the Amendment—
Such meeting to be specially summoned fo the purpose, not less than 14 clear days' notice to be given.The Schedule said that the same notice should be given as in the case of a Vestry meeting. In the case of a Vestry meeting only three days' notice was required. Then, the parish meeting under Clause 32 could be summoned at any time by any six parochial electors on their own initiative. A meeting might be summoned in that way after a three days' notice, and might set up a Parish Council, and when once a Parish Council was set up it could not be got rid of. Advantage might be taken of the absence of most of the residents of the village at a county agricultural meeting or Fat Stock Show. Six busybodies might hold a hole-in-the-corner meeting, and a Council might be decided upon without the sanction of any of the substantial electors. There might be only 10 voters in the parish, and yet six of those could demand a poll.
§
Amendment proposed,
To add at the end of the proposed Amendment,—"Such meeting to be specially summoned for the purpose, not less than 14 clear days' notice to be given."—(Mr. J. G. Lawson.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be added in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, this was a matter which should be dealt with in the First Schedule. The Bill said that the same notice should be given as was given in the case of a Vestry meeting; but when the proper time came, if it were thought desirable, he would provide for a longer notice. He would then assent to the 14 days' notice.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped that under the circumstances the Amendment would not be persisted in.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, he wished here to move the proviso which he had on the Paper at page 39, as follows:—
Provided always, that no resolution of the parish meeting shall be deemed to be carried unless it shall be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting, or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish.The President of the Local Government Board had already assented to a poll, but under this proviso a poll might not be necessary. Allusion had been made to the expense which would be entailed under the Bill, but he now made a proposal whereby a great deal of expenditure would be saved.
§
Amendment proposed, after the words inserted in the Amendment, to insert the words—
Provided always, that no resolution of the parish meeting shall be deemed to be carried unless it be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting, or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Committee had been discussing this question for the last hour or two. The view of the Government had been stated, and he did not think he was justified in repeating it.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood his hon. Friend. So far from wishing to reiterate what had been said, the hon. Member desired to meet the right hon. Gentleman half way. He (Mr. Lowther) had sympathised with the Government on the question of the poll, but he also thought there was a great deal to be said on behalf of the Amendment, which would meet the objection of the hon. Member for Liverpool, as to the expense of a poll being needlessly thrown on a parish. He thought the proposal a reasonable compromise. If a parish meeting was to adopt so strong a measure as practically terminating its 1318 own existence, there ought at least to be a strong expression of opinion in favour of that course. He could not see what hardship there was in insisting that the same preliminary should be gone through in the case of the adoption of the Parish Council as in the case of the adoption of the Baths and Wash houses Act, the Public Improvements Act, the Libraries Act, and so on. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not so curtly dismiss the Amendment, which, it appeared to him, would help them out of a difficulty.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 130; Noes 236.—(Division List, No. 323.)
§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)said, he wished to move to add the following proviso:—
Provided that no resolution constituting a Parish Council shall be deemed to be carried unless at least one-half of the parochial electors attend such meeting.This did not involve the question which the Committee had already decided. It involved the principle of a quorum pure and simple. The Government had rejected an Amendment laying down that a certain majority of those entitled to vote should vote for the resolution before a Parish Council could be constituted. He (Mr. Wyndham) presented an alternative which the Government had not argued against, though they might reject it. Both sides of the House were agreed that so momentous a step as was here contemplated should not be taken in a hurried manner at a hole-and-corner meeting, and to obviate that the Government suggested that a poll should be taken. It had been argued by those conversant with rural life that a poll would lead to expense, and that if the same effect could be produced without a poll all parties would be satisfied. Well, his proposal would prevent the resolution being passed at a hole-and-corner meeting, and would provide that the meeting should be in character suited to the important task it had to perform— namely, that it should consist of one-half the parochial electors.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo doubt there is a verbal difference between this and the preceding Amendment, but I have great difficulty in discerning anything but a verbal difference. I do not, 1319 however, want to press that. The position the Government take is, that a question of this sort must be determined by a majority of the electors, but in order to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who said there was a danger that sufficient notice might not be given or that a snatch vote might be taken, we agreed to make a concession; we agreed that a poll should be compulsory in all cases before a resolution of the kind could have any effect. All such stipulations as to how many people should be present at the meeting or should vote have absolutely broken down in practice. As to the adoptive Acts, which have been alluded to by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Paget), they are 30 or 40 years old, and when Parliament recently reviewed the Free Libraries Act it swept away these theories, and went back to the old English system of the bare majority. I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ SIR R. PAGEThoped the right hon. Gentleman would even yet reconsider his decision. He quite admitted that the right hon. Gentleman had offered a compulsory poll by way of concession; but, at the same time, it had been pointed out to him that in many cases there might be very large meetings—meetings comprising two-thirds or three-fourths of the electors—and that in that case it would be absurd to have a poll. The right hon. Gentleman would find that a compulsory poll would make the Bill thoroughly unpopular, on account of the expense which a poll would involve. It would be said that Parliament had forced an unnecessary expense on the people, and the people would, rightly enough, resent that.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the demand for a poll had come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. When the time came, if gentlemen opposite wished to rescind the determination in favour of a poll, he did not think the Government would press the concession upon them.
§ MR. JEFFREYSsaid, it was when Members of the Opposition asked for a two-thirds majority that the right hon. Gentleman said there should be a compulsory poll. He (Mr. Jeffreys) objected to a poll because be thought it would involve unnecessary expense. Surely it was not a great demand to make that half the electors should be present at a meeting at which it was decided whether 1320 or not there should be a Parish Council. If any interest were taken in the subject it was certain that more than half the electors would be present.
§ MR. J. L. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)said, there had been no suggestion yet as to when the poll was to be taken. If the poll was to be taken at the meeting, it would not be a very expensive matter; but if it was to be taken after so many days' notice, it would become a much more cumbrous and expensive operation.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThis question is rather premature; but I may say that the object of a poll would be to take the votes of those ratepayers who were not present at the meeting. But that question will arise later on.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he must again press the point of the non-resident freeholder. There were a considerable number of parishes in which there was a very large non-resident vote, owing, in some cases, to the creation of the faggot voters in the past.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had thrown out a hint that if Members on the Opposition side of the House objected to a poll being taken in all cases he would be inclined to recede from the arrangement be had entered into. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the poll should be compulsory in all cases, and that that was objected to by several hon. Members, who thought it might be possible to save expense by providing some other method of settling the question. If they were to be called upon to choose between no safeguard at all and adopting the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman he would certainly take the latter alternative, but he was prepared to support the Amendment before the House, and then, if that were defeated, he did not think he would be open to a charge of inconsistency if he voted in favour of the proposal to be made later on by the President of the Local Government Board.
§ MAJOR RASCHsaid, that any one conversant with village life would realise the difficulty of inducing so large a proportion of the members as was mentioned in the Amendment to attend a parish meeting, and if that were insisted on, it would become impossible to get the 1321 parish business done. He had not often the pleasure of supporting a proposal of the Government, but he was certainly with them on this matter.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, he desired next to move the Amendment standing in his name, but he proposed to modify it somewhat. His wish was to have a plain and simple issue, and to insure that a parish which had once adopted a Parish Council should be at liberty on some subsequent occasion to rescind its decision. The object of his Amendment—and as he understood it, the object of the whole Bill—was to give effect to the will of the parish, and the words he intended to move read thus—
Provided always, that where a Parish Council has been established by consent in a rural parish having a population less than two hundred, it shall be lawful for such parish, at a subsequent parish meeting specially summoned for the purpose, to rescind such consent, and in such case the affairs of such parish shall be administered by a parish meeting and not by a Parish Council.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERPerhaps I can save time if the hon. Baronet will allow me to interrupt him. On Friday night I intimated to the House that in effect I accepted this Amendment. It became quite evident when we abandoned the principle of the compulsory grouping of parishes that it was necessary to alter our scheme in order to meet optional cases. We propose consequently in Clause 30 to give power to dissolve a Parish Council on the strength of a resolution passed by a parish meeting. It is necessary it should be done by the County Council, because there will be many details of administration to be attended to. I think this can best be done on Clause 30.
§ SIR R. PAGETI will not move my Amendment now, but of course I reserve to myself the right to criticise the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
§
Amendment amended,
In line 6, by inserting the word "may" before the word "provide," and in line 8, by inserting after the word "meeting," the words "for every parish so grouped."— (Mr. Heneage.)
§ Words, as amended, inserted.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he too had a small Amendment to propose, the object being to facilitate the grouping of the parishes, and to make 1322 the districts convenient for the proper working of the Act. He agreed that they ought not to allow existing parish boundaries to be entirely overruled for the purposes of the present Act, but there were cases in which those boundaries would prove exceedingly inconvenient, hi many instances the centres of population had moved, so that the village was situated in a corner of the parish. That village would be the proper centre of a civil administrative district, but under the Bill it would only be possible to group one parish with the whole of another parish, and much inconvenience would necessarily follow. There was a precedent for what he was proposing. For School Board and ecclesiastical purposes they had already avoided being bound by mere parochial lines, and the system had been found to work well. He thought the right hon. Gentleman, if he accepted the Amendment, would find the grouping could be much more easily arranged than if the Bill were passed in its present form.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
In line 7, after (he word "parishes" to insert the words, "or part or parts of parishes.' —(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThis is a highly technical question. I have referred it for consideration to those gentlemen who have advised me on this matter. They perfectly understand the difficulty that will occur in a very small number of cases, but they tell me that the results consequent upon our attempting to deal with parts of parishes would make difficult and almost impossible the working of the scheme of the Bill, and they are of the opinion that the acceptance of the Amendment would create a real and substantial difficulty. As the hon. Member is aware, the County Council already possesses certain powers to deal with cases where local circumstances render desirable the grouping of parts of parishes, and, under these circumstances, I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1323
§
Amendment to the said proposed Amendment,
In line 8, after the word "meeting," to insert the words "for every parish so grouped."—(Sir R. Paget.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. LEES KNOWLESI would suggest a different phraseology—"for each of such parishes as aforesaid."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI would rather accept the words of the hon. Baronet. They can, if necessary, be altered on Report.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEWill it be possible for the County Council to group several parishes under one Parish Council with one parish meeting?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that on the Second Reading he pointed out the difficulty likely to arise from the grouping of parishes for the purpose of having one Council, and he showed how a separate local spirit was likely to arise and to bring the parishes in conflict with one another. He understood that this Bill would do away with the powers at present possessed by County Councils to group parishes.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEI understand the right hon. Gentleman to say parishes cannot be grouped with one Council and one parish meeting.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERIf a parish is grouped with another the separate existence of the parish will remain. It will have a separate parish meeting. Parishes amalgamated under the provisions of the County Councils Act, on the contrary, cease to have a separate existence.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to put a case to the right hon. Gentleman. Suppose three parishes were grouped; that on a given subject the different parish meetings disagreed, or that all three parish meetings disagreed with the Parish Council, who would settle the dispute? Could the Parish Council override the parish meetings, and to whom could appeal be made?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI hardly follow the right hon. Gentleman's 1324 question. Certain powers of consent are given to each parish meeting, and, of course, that consent only affects the parish itself; it does not in any way affect the other parishes. We must preserve the individuality of the parish.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said, he desired to move the omission of the words—
So, however, that no parish shall be grouped without the consent of the parish meeting.The object he had in view was to increase the number of eases in which Parish Councils might be appointed. He very much regretted that the President of the Board of Trade had abandoned the original form of the Bill so far as the question of grouping was concerned. It would have been far better to have made it compulsory to have a Parish Council for every parish. As it was now proposed, before parishes could be grouped it would be necessary to have the consent not only of the County Council but also of the parish meeting, and he feared there was considerable misapprehension in the House as to what the real character of the parish meeting would be. It would be by no means easy to get assent to a grouping resolution. The farmers, as a rule, would be opposed to grouping, and it would be found that in the small parishes two or three large farmers would dominate the parish meeting. The labourers would be unwilling to act, especially under the open system of voting, in a manner contrary to the wishes of those who very likely might be their masters. He was quite aware that the Government had abandoned the principle of compulsory grouping, but he denied that his Amendment embodied that principle, as all he desired was to give force to the real wish of the inhabitants of the parish, and to secure that the appointment of Parish Councils should not be frustrated by the action of the parish meeting. The only way of protecting the labourer in such circumstances was to give absolute power to the County Councils to enforce the system of grouping in cases in which they were satisfied that the real wishes of the labourers ran in that direction. There was no danger that the power would be improperly exercised.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
In line 8, after the word "grouped," to leave out the words "So, however, that no parish shall be grouped without the consent of the parish meeting.'—(Mr. Bryn Roberts.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERA very similar question to this was raised on an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean earlier in the Debate on this section, and we then found that the general sense of the Committee was manifestly very much against compulsory grouping. The Amendment would be simply fatal to the principle to which the Government were pledged and which the Committee have approved, and the only way to ensure the enforcement of that principle is to require that no parish shall be grouped without its consent.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the hon. Member had made out a case against himself. He said the County Council would never group two parishes unless they knew the real wishes of the inhabitants of both. But how were those wishes to be obtained except by the expression of them in the form indicated by the Bill. The hon. Member had suggested that one or two large farmers would dominate the meetings; was it not strange that at one moment they were trusting the labourers to be independent and at the next declaring that they would not be so? This matter was threshed out in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was clear that the House was opposed to any pressure being put on a parish, either by the Local Government Board or the County Council, to be grouped with any other parish. He trusted that the hon. Member would himself see the necessity of having some means of ascertaining the wishes of the parishioners, such as was suggested in the Bill.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSsaid, compulsory grouping involved compulsion against the will of the parish, and he objected to that as much as any other hon. Member. His wish was, however, to see that effect was given to the real wish of the labourers, who, in small parishes, would certainly ho in favour of grouping, but who at the parish meeting 1326 would not be able to give expression to those views by reason of the dominating influence of the farmers. He should not withdraw the Amendment, but at the same time would not press it to a Division.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. JESSE COLLLNGS moved, in line 9 of proposed Amendment, to leave out "the parish meeting," and insert "three-fourths of the electors of such parish." It was not only necessary to provide that no parish should be grouped against its will, but that no parish should be grouped against the wishes of any considerable minority of its electors. When a parish meeting decided whether it should have a Parish Council it dealt with its own internal affairs—with a matter concerning itself only. But the question of grouping meant attaching them to an outside body, and, therefore, a large majority should not be sufficient to enable that to be done, because if a minority almost as large as the majority should be grouped against its will, there would be continual friction between the two parishes. If there was only a majority of four or five for the grouping, it would be impossible to imagine a more unsatisfactory state of things, or a state of things tending more to prevent the two parishes working amicably. But if a majority of three-fourths wore required, it would be a further security that the grouping would not take place without the consent of the electors. As ho desired to secure perfectly smooth working between the two parishes, he moved his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
In line 9, to leave out the words "the parish meeting," and insert the words, "three-fourths of the electors of such parish."—(Mr. Jesse Collings.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the question is worth a great deal of consideration. The Government have declared that they will not have these "fancy fractions," if I may use the expression in dealing with the appointment of Parish Councils. Though I do not agree with them, there is this much 1327 to be said for their attitude—that if a parish adopted a Parish Council, and found it inconvenient and not to work well, they could go back again to the parish meeting. But in the case of grouping you take an irretrievable step.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo, no.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI thought that it was a marriage for better or for worse, and that there was no provision for a divorce in case the union should not prove to be satisfactory. If it is otherwise, perhaps there is no occasion for the Amendment.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThat matter has not escaped my attention. It will be made clear beyond all doubt that the County Council may, if necessary, dissolve a grouping. I would say, in reply to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, that I think it will be a hard case if a grouping were carried by only a small majority. But we will ask the County Council, before they give their decision, to take all the circumstances into consideration. Grouping does not follow a parish meeting, as a matter of course. I have confidence in the County Council; I think the more the County Council is brought into play the better, and I am sure that in the case of grouping the majority will be taken into account by the County Council.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIs there an Amendment down to provide for the dissolving of unsatisfactory groupings?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERYou may take it from me that it shall be attended to.
§ * MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)said, he desired to know whether the initiation in the matter of grouping was to proceed from the parish or from the County Council; also whether the consent of the parish was to be given before the scheme of the County Council was brought out, or whether the parish would have the power to raise an objection after they had seen the scheme of the County Council? A parish meeting might wish for a certain amount of grouping, and yet not wish for grouping as proposed in the scheme of the County Council.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI am sure the County Council will act fairly between all the parties concerned. There is a provision that the County Council shall act at once on the resolution of the parish meeting for grouping; but we 1328 cannot weigh down the Bill with Regulations to control the actions of the County Council.
MR. BRYN ROBERTSasked whether the consent of the parish meeting could be taken by a poll if the meeting desired it?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERYes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Sir R, PAGET moved—
In line 9, at end, to add, "and provided always, that no parish shall be grouped with any other parish not in the same Poor Law Union.
The object of the Amendment was to prevent difficulties as to boundaries and overlapping areas. It would be seen that unless such a provision as he proposed were inserted in the Bill it would open the door to the grouping of a parish with a neighbouring parish in another Union, which would be most objectionable. In every Bill dealing with local government au effort should be made to do away with overlapping. Unions were within county boundaries. Under the Bill, as it stood, there was nothing to prevent the grouping of two parishes in two different Unions, perhaps in two different counties, which would not tend, to say the least, to the simplification of boundaries. It was to avoid that difficulty that he moved his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
In line 9, at end, to add, "and provided always that no parish shall be grouped with any other parish not in the same Poor Law Union."—(Sir R. Paget.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI quite agree with my hon. Friend as to the desirability of not confusing areas. Every reformer of local government wishes to bring overlapping to an end. But my answer to the Amendment is this, that as the grouping can only be made by the County Council, the parishes grouped must be within its jurisdiction and in the same county, and therefore there can be no overlapping of counties. That being secured, I think it is better not to fetter in any way the County Council which may be called upon to work out the Bill by a re-arrangement of Unions.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not desire in any way to underrate the discretion with which the County Council will use their powers; but as the County Council have ample powers to alter Union boundaries, I think they should be prevented from adding to the confusion as to boundaries by grouping parishes in different Unions. Everyone will agree that it would be a serious thing to say that two parishes shall not be grouped together, if it happens that they be on the two sides of a Union line; but by the adoption of the Amendment, or in some other way, the County Council should be required to keep our boundaries as simple and as plain as possible, and not for some small local reason, perhaps, introduce more confusion whore, heaven knows, enough of confusion exists already.
§ MR. STANSFELD (Halifax)said, that unless the matter were left entirely to the County Council—which he was in favour of—the Amendment would have to go further, for it would be necessary to lay it down also that the line of districts should not be crossed.
§ * MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, it was quite certain that they would make the present confusion worse confounded unless they laid down the rule that the new local areas should not cross the lines of county and the Union boundaries. He saw that there was a provision in Clause 30 instructing the County Council to see that the whole of a parish should be within the same county district. There should be added to that, in his opinion, an instruction to the County Council to secure that the whole of the area under the jurisdiction of a Parish Council should be within the same county district.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERAs I understand Clause 30, it provides all that is necessary in that respect, but I will consider the matter further before we come to the clause. However, I think there is a great objection to inserting any words which tend to hamper the County Council.
§ * SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)said that, speaking in the interest of the County Councils, he thought it was desirable that this instruction should be given them not to go over the Union boundaries.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, he would respond to the appeal of the right hon Gentleman by withdrawing the Amendment, on the clear understanding that the whole matter would be dealt with at a further stage.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERIt will be dealt with on Clause 30. I will see what words will meet the case.
MR. WHAHTONsaid, he was quite sure that no County Council would feel it was overburdened by the instruction which had been suggested.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham) moved to insert in the proposed Amendment, after the words "consent of the parish meeting," at end, the further words—
Given after the terms of the proposed grouping order shall have been laid before such meeting.
His object was to make it perfectly clear that before the consent of a parish was given to its being grouped to another parish, the parish meeting would have before it the proposed order of the County Council, so that it might see whether the terms of the grouping were satisfactory to itself. If grouping were to be carried out in a satisfactory manner, it was essential that the parishes should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions on the grouping order before the order was finally made.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
To add after the words "consent of the parish meeting," at the end, the words "given after the terms of the proposed grouping order shall have been laid before such meeting."—(Mr. J. H. Johnstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI think the Amendment is superfluous. A parish must first consent to he grouped before it can be grouped, and how can a parish make up its mind on the matter unless the proposals for grouping are first submitted to it?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere may be a case of two parishes ready to he grouped on certain terms, but not on the particular terms laid down by the County Council. For instance, may there not be 1331 terms of a financial character laid before the parish meeting?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo. The only question is the question of grouping.
§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)asked whether the proposal for grouping was to come in the first instance from the parish, or whether the County Council on its own motion took the initiative?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERIf the County Council were of opinion that parishes should be grouped they would point that out to the parishes. But no parish can be grouped without its consent.
§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEasked whether the County Councils were after the passing of the Bill forthwith to take into consideration the question of the grouping of parishes?
§ MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)asked whether the County Council should first take action, or the parishes concerned jointly make application to the County Council? He had an Amendment which contemplated that the parishes should meet together and jointly make their application to the County Council, which he thought would be the better course to pursue.
§ MR. J. H. JOHNSTONEsaid, the President of the Local Government Board had conveyed that the villages could not bargain about the terms on which they were to be grouped. Therefore, it was most essential that they should have the terms before they gave their consent to the grouping, which might work most unjustly against their interests.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERSome hon. Members seem to apprehend that the parishes may have a burden thrown upon them without their knowledge or consent. I assure them that there cannot be anything of the kind. I have a great objection to interfering by Statute with such a great organisation as the County Councils, which will have the carrying out of this work. Surely we can trust the County Council to act fairly between the parishes concerned without stereotyping in an Act of Parliament every step they must take in the matter.
§ MR. J. H. JOHNSTONEsaid, that unless it was clearly established that the parish meeting would have before it the draft of the proposed grouping order, or the terms of the proposed grouping, he should persist in his Amendment.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)thought it would be far better for these little parishes to submit the application to be grouped rather than for the County Council to make the proposal. He apprehended that otherwise a County Council, with a strong tendency towards grouping, might bring a good deal of pressure to bear upon, these small parishes, which would result in their being grouped without their wishing it.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)thought the question was one of some delicacy and difficulty and required some consideration. Ho apprehended the County Council, active as it was, would hardly take the initiative, but would wait for the application to come through one of the parishes. On receiving an application the County Council would communicate with the other parishes, and some scheme would have to be agreed upon before the actual grouping was carried into effect. That being so, he thought the Amendment was not wholly unworthy of consideration.
§ COMMANDERI BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)did not think it was at all likely that the County, Council would make an application to the parishes without in the first place knowing whether it was agreeable to the parishes to be grouped. He thought they must give them credit for common sense, and they would hardly be likely to ask the parishes to be grouped unless the parishes had previously had the opportunity of discussing the matter and making their views known.
§ MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)thought when they came to Clause 30 it would be necessary to put in some general words declaring the procedure to be adopted in the order of the County Council. Full notice would have to be given, and the assent of the parishes must be obtained, therefore it would not do for the County Council to come down and say they would group certain parishes.
§ MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)asked if it was intended to issue a Circular of Instructions to the County Council, stating that it would be necessary to make provision for survey and grouping, and also stating whether the County Council were to act on the initiative, or to wait for applications from the various small parishes?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERapprehended that the procedure would be that the parishes would apply, and that the County Council would then act upon the application. He thought the Local Government Board would send round a Circular on the subject.
§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)wished to point out that Rule 4 in the second part provided three clear days before any meeting of a Parish Council, notice to be given thereof specifying the intended meeting and the business of the Council to be transacted at the meeting.
§ Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
§ Amendment agreed to.
THE CHAIRMANThe next Amendment in Order is in the name of the hon. Member for the Lichfield Division, Major Darwin.
§ * MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)proposed the following Amendment:—
In page 1, line 12, after "parish," insert "and parishes in a Local Government district can be declared to tie rural parishes for the purposes of this Act by an order issued by the Local Government Board.The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to include rural parishes which were technically urban within the scope of the Bill. The subject had been discussed, and he thought the Government recognised the fact that there were a large number of parishes all over England which, although they came under the definition of urban districts, yet to all intents and purposes were rural parishes, and some alteration in the system of government was necessary. When speaking in the preceding Debate he said something to the effect that if the Government wished to discuss this point in another place, he should not be disposed to press his Amendment unduly, but at that time he had not heard all the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board, and he proposed, therefore, to move this Amendment at the present time in the hope that it might be accepted, or that some assurance would be given that an opportunity would be afforded for discussing the whole subject. When he made his 1334 former speech, he had not heard the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, which, he understood, only went the length of granting additional powers to Local Boards in Local Board districts. That proposal did not satisfy the point he raised at all. He was glad, however, that the right hon. Gentleman intended to do this, and he was obliged to him for the conciliatory attitude he had adopted towards the various Amendments. His point had relation to the case where there were more than one parish in a Local Board district. In one case he had in his mind the headquarters were a mile and a half or two miles from the centre of the Local Board district, and therefore the parish was a very distinct unit in itself. But if this Bill was curried as at present drafted, a parish standing by itself, to a certain extent, would nor, for example, be a library area under the Public Libraries Act; it would not have the power of managing the water supply granted under this Act, whereas the next parish to it, of precisely the same character in every respect, would have all these advantages. He wished to obtain some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he would take into consideration the question of granting to parishes which were essentially rural the government of rural parishes, even though included in a Local Board district. The hon. Member for Sunderland had made a proposal very similar to his (Major Darwin's)—namely, that the Local Government Board should have power to deal with this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman had said he would take the question into consideration. He would now ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had considered the proposal, and if so, what he intended to do? He preferred the Local Government Board should have this power rather than the County Council, because he thought it was desirable in establishing a system of this sort that there should be uniformity, and this was not a question of government but of establishment. If the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment he hoped he would give them an assurance that they could again raise this question of further powers being delegated to parishes in a Local Board district. He begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 12, after the word "parish," to insert the words "and parishes in a Local Government district can be declared to be rural parishes for the purposes of this Act by an order issued by the Local Government Board."—(Major Darwin.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERwas afraid the Government could not accept this Amendment, because if it were adopted it would practically be interfering with the whole of their system of local government, and it was clear that if in the case of parishes which were urban districts they declared them to be rural they would be creating a state of confusion which he was sure the hon. Member did not wish to create. He quite understood the point the hon. Member had in mind, and he should, in accordance with the pledge he gave to the House, on Clause 29 propose an Amendment for extending to the District Councils of any district a large number—indeed, he did not think there would be any reservation —of the powers which were by this Bill granted to rural districts; and he should also propose in that clause to take the power to apply these powers not only to the whole but part of the area of boroughs or urban districts. He should at an early date place the Amendment on the Paper, when the hon. Member could see it, and he should be happy to confer with him with a view to carry out his desire. As he had explained, it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment as it now stood on the Paper, as it would interfere with their whole system of local government; but his desire was to confer on Urban Authorities the powers they ought to possess and, so far as what might be called rural parishes were concerned, to see that they should be no worse off than the rural parishes under this Bill.
§ * SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)observed that by Section 8 it was proposed to give the Parish Council power to provide buildings for public offices and for meetings for public purposes. The Local Boards and other Urban Authorities at the present time had not the power to acquire these premises for public 1336 meetings and public purposes or anything more than for Local Board offices. Would the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with the powers he proposed to give to the Urban Authorities on becoming Parish Councils, such as the power of acquiring buildings for public purposes, see that such power be extended to District Councils and Boards?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERwas obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling his attention to tins point, and care would be taken to provide that this power should be given to the Local Authorities indicated.
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman's promise was that on Clause 29 he would insert the words to give the powers now wanted to Urban Authorities which were technically rural, and to Municipal Bodies or to parts thereof. This was a large promise, and one with which they might very well be content.
§ MAJOR DARWINintimated that after the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Amendment.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEexpressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would be cautious as regarded parts of districts, for that was going beyond anything he ever asked for, and there were obvious objections to setting up parts of districts as against the urban district which contained these parts.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E. R., Holderness) moved an Amendment to leave out Sub-section (3). He said his object was to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and invite his consideration to certain matters in this sub-section. This sub-section seemed to him rather too drastic for the necessities of the case. He believed there were about 700 parishes which were divided by sanitary districts, and of course by the operation of this clause there would be 700 new parishes made straight away. The probabilities were that in case of these parishes which had been divided that the part of the parish which remained in the rural sanitary district would be by far the less populous part. It was very likely that 1337 once having split up these parishes the component parts might not be unwilling to be annexed to one of the neighbouring parishes, especially as their centre of life would have probably been moved from them. The effect of this would be that before the County Council had time to take any action each of these portions would ipso facto become a parish under the Act, and would have either a parish meeting or County Council according to their desire. He should have thought that would be rather inconvenient, and that it would have been better to have left a little more time for the County Councils, after the passing of the Act, to see whether these component pieces of the parish would prefer being raised into a parish by themselves or whether they would prefer being annexed to a neighbouring parish. Moreover, he thought that under Clause 30 of the Act there was almost sufficient power for this purpose, and very likely a few words might be inserted that would give an impulse to County Councils to act a little more rapidly, he thought under that clause they might do all that was required to get rid of this unnecessarily drastic arrangement by which, immediately on the passing of this Act, they added, without any further discussion, 699 parishes to the number that already existed. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not see his way to dispense with the somewhat unnecessary action which would add more parishes than there was any necessity for to the already existing number? He would formally move the Amendment in order to direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the matter.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Commander Bethell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the Subsection stand part of the Clause."
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, of course the Government could not accept the Amendment. In a great many large parishes they had a portion situate in an urban district which was of an urban character, and another portion in a rural district which was of a rural character, 1338 and at this moment the urban portion had its Local Board and its full complement of local government. The rural portion formed part of the rural sanitary district, and had the effective government of that district. If this sub-section were omitted there would be no provision for parish meetings or Parish Councils in a parish now partly within an urban and partly within a rural district; that is, that part which was within the rural district would be deprived of all the advantages to which it was entitled. The urban people already possessed their Local Board, and all these various powers of sanitary and other matters, but the rest of the people would be outside. The object of the Government was to get the whole of the Poor Law parishes in one country district. They wanted to prevent overlapping and crossing; therefore, they had the scheme to separate the urban from the rural part of the parish. There might be some difficulties in working this out, which had not occurred to him, and when they came to consider the clause the hon. Member might point out to him any special points to which he should be glad to give his attention. At present the Government considered the creation of a new and efficient parish absolutely necessary to work out the scheme of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, and if there was any point of administration he thought might be wisely dealt with he should be happy if the hon. Member would bring it under his notice.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLwas afraid he had not made himself quite clear. He appreciated the point that they must have all the areas within one boundary and the desire to give those portions of the parishes which wore going to be created a new parish by themselves the necessary powers for self-government. His point, however, was that it would be batter to give a little more time, so as to allow those portions of the parishes which desired it to be annexed to neighbouring parishes, and thus avoid the necessity of adding so many as 700 new parishes, very likely in most cases without the centre of life, which would have been removed into the old urban 1339 district, and where there was probably no necessity for creating them a parish by themselves.
§ MR. STOREYthought that the hon.Member scarcely realised how much his proposal would affect municipal boroughs. In all municipal boroughs there were portions of a parish not in the municipal borough. In Sunderland they had a parish 90 per cent. of which was in the town and 10 per cent, outside. If this sub-clause were not inserted that 10 per cent. of the parish would not have a parish meeting or Parish Council. The hon. Member suggested that this section of the parish should annex itself to the other parish. As a matter of fact, this portion of the parish he spoke of was larger than either of the neighbouring parishes, and would be little likely to annex itself to them. He would give the opposite case. They had another parish—that of Ryhope—nine-tenths of which was outside the town, and one-tenth inside. If this sub-clause were not inserted the people in the town who were under municipal government would be entitled to go and vote in the rural part. He considered, therefore, the Amendment ought not to be adopted, there being no such danger as the hon. Member seemed to fear.
§ * SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)said, he hoped the Government would agree to some such proposal. As the clause stood they would get into a very curious jumble. In the parish in which he lived they would have an urban district in the middle of an old parish, and portions of the old parish would have to form a new parish, although they were two miles apart, and these portions would have to hold a parish meeting. Such an arrangement might not be impracticable, but it was clearly undesirable. It would have been better had it been proposed that the County Council should take into consideration all the question so divided portions of parishes, and adjust them afterwards. Another difficulty would be the complication of local administration as regarded the question of rates. It was undesirable that such complication should arise. There were the questions of the School Boards and cemeteries, for example. It was clear that very curious anomalies and difficulties would be 1340 created under the clause; and ho would suggest that it would be better to suspend the action of the Bill in regard to parishes in this condition, and allow them to be dealt with afterwards. There was no time for adjustment now.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he did not think the hon. Baronet was present at an earlier part of the evening when this question was discussed. He could not submit to the County Council such vital questions as regarded these rural parishes; these parishes to which reference had been made must remain on the same level as the rural parishes. Although there might be many cases in which these anomalies would arise in rural districts, ho would point out that the majority of such cases were outside large Municipalities, where, unfortunately, the boundaries had not been made coterminous; but the people in these parishes must have their statutory rights, and the County Council would have ample power to deal with the difficulty mentioned.
§ * SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, the only objection he had to the matter being dealt with now was the question of time. The Act was to take effect on the 1st April; and, by Statute, any order made by a County Council bail to remain three months after being made before it could be confirmed by the Local Government Board. It was impossible, therefore, between the time of the passing of the Act and the Act coming into effect, for the County Council to make any change. He merely suggested that these parishes should wait a little before full effect was given to their statutory rights. He did not want to come into conflict with Municipal Authorities at all. He thought the County Council was quite capable of dealing with the question, but it was impossible to deal with it instantly, and he again ventured to suggest that they should suspend the operation of the Bill in regard to such parishes.
§ * SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)said, he might take the opportunity of enforcing a view with which he had dealt on the Second Reading of the Bill, in reference to cases where the district left out was not rural but urban. In one case part of a rural parish had been left out of an urban district for purely selfish 1341 reasons, and under that clause that part of the parish would remain a rural parish. He wished to know whether there was no power to deal with such an anomaly, either under the Act of 1888 or this Bill? It would be a source of very great evil if this Bill did not remedy this matter. It would he an evil, not in a sanitary sense alone. Such a part ought to he included in the urban district. He thought the subject was one of considerable importance.
§ MR. HENEAGEsaid, the County Councils could not have power to set up separate parishes in urban districts. Any one who had to do with growing towns, as he had, knew very well that they entrenched upon parishes not in the original area. In his opinion, the sub-section should remain in the Bill in order to prevent the operation of those selfish motives to which the hon. Baronet had referred. If any anomalies were to he created tinder the Bill, he was sure the President of the Local Government Board would give attention to them, he honed, meanwhile, that he would stand by the sub-section, which was an absolutely necessary one.
§ MR. J. G. LAWSONsaid, it was purely a matter of drafting, and by the omission of two lines in Clause 58 this sub-section might be left out. If they accepted the definition of "parish" in the Act of 1888 it would be necessary, he thought, to insert the words "for the purpose of this Act," to show that a certain area was to be a parish for such purposes. If the right hon. Gentleman would look al the definitions in other Acts he would, see that the greatest possible care was taken in the matter. He could instance cases in which difficulties were likely to arise if precautions were not taken, he thought, with the hon. Baronet the Member for Tewkesbury, that the County Councils should be allowed to settle these questions.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, with regard to the class of case mentioned by the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, the Local Government Act of 1888 gave the County Council power to convert a, rural district into an urban district, and vice versâ. This clause; was worded compulsorily in order to avoid all the inquiries that would otherwise be neces- 1342 sary. He had had a, calculation made from which it appeared that this Bill would nor be brought into operation before March, 1896, if these parishes were dealt with otherwise than the sub-section proposed, and consequently he must stand by it without any modification
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he could not help saving that he regarded with the utmost horror the abandonment of the definition of "parish" as contained in the Local Government Act, 1888, and the substitution of a new definition in this Bill. They had to begin this new Act by abandoning the old definition.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERexpressed dissent.
§ MR. F. STANHOPEsaid, the definition of the Act of 1888 was not to apply under this Act. It seemed to him that, as a matter of pure drafting, it was absurd to say that in one Act "parish" should mean something and in another Act that it did not mean the same thing, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible in the Interpretation Clause of this Bill to provide that "parish" should mean what it meant in the Act of 1888, subject to the exceptions necessary to be established for the purposes of the Bill? He did not wish to press the matter further than that—he asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not meet this view?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, since the Act of 1888 a general Interpretation Act had been passed, and he was of opinion that the Bill followed the definition in that Act: but he would inquire into the matter.
§ * MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he agreed that some such sub-section was required; hut the President of the Local Government Board should consider carefully if it was necessary to have the Act in its present form in this respect. In his (Mr. Hob house's) opinion legislation of this kind created very considerable inconvenience. He knew of a municipal borough extending over a large agricultural area which only contained a small number of cottages. This sub-section would set up a separate Parish Council in that area with only 10 or 12 members, and it would oblige them to have a parish meeting on April 15 next. As had been already pointed out, 1343 it would be impossible for the County Councils to take action in the matter within that time, and the result would be that the Bill would set up an entirely new body, which must involve unnecessary expense, before the County Council or any other authority had time to inquire about these parishes, and amalgamate them with other parishes. Inconvenience would arise from this. The Local Government Board had apparently decided upon this course in order to get rid of the trouble of local inquiries; but it was not a very good way of dealing with the cases of these parishes.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the clause would relate to 700 parishes, which would be only sham parishes, and which would have to be absorbed. He should have thought that the President of the Local Government Board would see that the operation of the clause would create absurdity and expense and anomaly. He might have tried to find out if there was no other way than that which he had brought forward. It was proposed that the County Council should be allowed a little more time, and that the parishes and the County Council should consult and see what was the most convenient course to adopt. That was a common-sense way of looking at the matter. The right hon. Gentleman said that would occupy to 1896. He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) said it would not. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to meet the objections to the clause with a non possumus. The question of boundaries arose, and it must be adjusted with the least possible friction and grievance to the people. It would be a great grievance to have a place created a parish in order that it might be absorbed in a few months. But it was very much a question of drafting, and the right hon. Gentleman could surely find some way out of the difficulty. He thought he ought to adopt the suggestion that the operation of the Bill be suspended for a time in regard to these parishes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)said, it appeared to him that this was a very arbitrary clause, and, notwithstanding all that had taken place, that they ought to be able to find some means of dealing 1344 with the question. He moved that in the wording of the clause the word "shall" be omitted, in order to insert "may."
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 16, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "may."—(Mr. Tomilson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the question raised by this Amendment had been fully discussed on the last one. He would point out that the Divided Parishes Act could be brought into operation where circumstances had arisen in certain parishes, on which, for local reasons, it might be thought necessary that division should take place. Parliament enacted that there should be a local inquiry, and that an Order must issue, which Order might be objected against, and might subsequently be dealt with by Parliament. An Order would take effect on the 25th March following the issue. Well, even the most sanguine advocate of the Bill would perceive that the Bill could not have reached the Royal Assent in time for the three months' notice to be given prior to the 25th of March, 1894. Six hundred or 700 Orders would have to come into operation before the 25th of March, 1895, and if they were contested they would not come into force until after the 25th of March, 1896. They had nothing to do with local considerations at all. It was an Imperial consideration, so to speak. The clause would create new Poor Law parishes. He could not accept the Amendment for making that optional which would be useless if not compulsory.
§ MR. TOMLINSONThe option would be that of the Local Government Board.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo, no.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
On the Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
Page 1, line 20, after "1876," insert "and the Acts amending the same.
Line 21, leave out sub-section (4).
§ Clause agreed to.
1345§ Clause 2 (Parish meetings).
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, he wished to move an Amendment providing that the parish meeting for a rural parish should consist
of the persons whose names appear in the poor rate assessment for the parish, and have paid their rates.He would point out what the law was at present. It was that—No person having refused or neglected to pay the rate due and demanded of him was entitled to be present or to vote for any Vestry until he shall have paid the same.This was the reasonable rule at present prevailing—that those who paid the rates personally should administer them personally, and that representation and taxation should go together. That was the old doctrine, which at one time was greatly favoured by hon. Gentlemen who generally held Liberal and Whig constituencies. He would press the point almost from a historical point of view, and he would appeal to a great authority on the question, whose name was familiar to all who knew anything about the question of rates—he meant Nichol, author of The History of the Poor Law. Speaking of the parish of Southwell, this writer said—It was determined to make the rating for the relief of the poor universal in the parish, and that none should be excused. Hitherto most of the cottages and dwellings of the working classes had been omitted in the collection, and the poor rates came to be regarded in the light of a contribution by the affluent for the benefit of the needy, and so viewed we cannot wonder that the latter should be desirous of obtaining as much as possible of the supposed benefit …. trick and subterfuge.….If every individual, whether poor or rich, were required to pay the rate, it would to some extent prove a, corrective for this evil, and be a protection to the ratepayers generally.….The consequences in other respects were also beneficial, for the people took a pride in these payments, and exhibited the printed receipts which they obtained in return as proofs that they also had contributed for the common benefit.They wanted to encourage that feeling of independence among the persons who wore to deal with the rates; to make them feel that they wore not an inferior class of people, but a portion of the community who paid the rates, and therefore as such had a right to some share in the administration of them. He wished to point out another, and, perhaps, a stronger 1346 reason, why the constituents of each Parish Council should be ratepayers. They wished to get the opinion of the residents, and of people who were habitually resident. He agreed in this matter with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), who said he would strike off the nonresident freeholders. He would strike off the non-resident freeholder, the lodger, and everyone who did not pay rates. In many parishes it was found that those who did not pay rates often exceeded the number of residents who did pay, and care should be taken that the vote of a temporary lodger population did not saddle the permanent residents with an institution they did not want. Some hon. Members contended that the compounders and lodgers in a parish would be but few, but that only showed how little these gentlemen were aware of the real facts of the case. Why in a certain parish of Staffordshire whilst there were only 170 ratepayers there were 250 compounders. In some parishes there were only from three to a dozen ratepayers amongst from 100 to 200 parishioners. He did not care so much for the big landowners. The rich could take care of themselves, but the hardship was great on the small occupiers and freeholders. No doubt these were few in number, but it was sought to increase them. They wished to see many people rising from the position of agricultural labourers and taking small farms and becoming small freeholders. These were the people who would not escape as compounders, and these were the people who would be squeezed out of existence by taxation. The Parish Councils would not only have to deal with small matters and raise a 1d. rate. They might impose a rate of 20s. in the £1 in connection with the adoptive Acts, for the Bill contained no chock upon them whatever in regard to that matter. He wanted to see the Council founded on a popular and representative character—all the residents in the parish; but the Bill would place the labourers and others who had worked up their positions on an equality with men who came into the parish for a few mouths or a year or two. He would conclude what he had to say with another quotation—not a quotation of a 1347 year ago like the one with which he began, but only of yesterday, from the Royal Commission on Labour. This was what Mr. Cecil Chapman, an Assistant Commissioner, said with regard to the system of compounding—The rates vary considerably in different places, from 1s. 9d. to 3s. in the £1, and are almost always paid by the landlord. This is a bad plan. It is most important for the labourer to realise the cost of local administration, and to know exactly how much actual rent is going to the landlord. Besides, a man who pays rates feels that he is more on a level with every other person in the community, and independence of feeling cannot be too strongly encouraged. The Small Tenements Act and the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Acts are intended only to save trouble to the rate collector, a matter of very small importance compared with the general character of the people.In order to maintain the general character of the agricultural population, he begged the Government to accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 1, line 27, to leave out, from the word "of" to end of sub-section, and insert the words "the persons whose names appear in the poor rate assessment for the parish and have paid their rates."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he quite understood what the hon. Member intended by the Amendment, although if it were accepted in its present form it would not have the effect contemplated. He ventured to say that since the Act of 1869 amongst the persons whose names appeared on the poor rate assessment and had paid their rates were the compound householders, because the law had required that they should be entered on the rate-book as ratepayers, and whether they had paid their rates or not they would be deemed to have been duly rated, and to have paid their rates. The question before the Committee was whether they were going to repeal the Act of 1869—that was the compound householder franchise — on which all their franchises had been based ever since. He thought it was too late in the day to make such a proposition as that. He did not think the House of Commons would listen to it. He was sure the House would not listen to it, as 1348 the practical disfranchisement of all the tenants in the Kingdom who paid their rates in their rent. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "Oh!" but he maintained that where a man let a house at so much a week, or quarter, or year, subject to the condition that ho paid the rate, ho received back in the rent some portion, at least, of that payment. The man who paid the rent certainly paid some portion of the rate. But whether that were the case or not in the existing system of Imperial and local government, they had accepted the principle that the compound householder should be put on the same level as the ordinary householder. If the suggestion of the hon. Member were adopted, the Bill would be of little use—it would be unworkable, and in no shape or form could the Government accept the Amendment.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, he agreed that the Amendment would hardly have the effect which his hon. Friend desired. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said the adoption of the Amendment would mean the repeal of the Act of 1869, but it would not be necessary to repeal that Act to get rid of the compound householder, and later on an Amendment would be moved dealing with that question, which he hoped the Government would be able to accept, as it would not infringe on the principle they stood upon. The question whether ho who paid the rent also paid the rate was a large one. He (Mr. W. Long) should be quite prepared at a fitting time to argue that matter with the right hon. Gentleman. Where commercial rents were paid—that was to say, where the landlord got the best rent he could— the principle might lie, but in the rural districts the landlords did not attempt to get as rent the value of the house the labourer occupied. It had been proved times out of number that the owner of this kind of property did not get 2 per cent, for his outlay in building the houses and keeping them in repair. He did not believe that anybody on the other side of the House, however bitter he might be against landowners— and there were plenty bitter enough— would be bold enough or foolish enough to get up and attempt to prove that the landowners had raised the rents of their cottages as the 1349 rates had risen. This was not the time to go into the question of whether or not the rate was paid in the rent, hut even the right hon. Gentleman opposite himself would admit that the men who were to elect the Parish Councils and, who would have the power of saying what money should he spent and how it should be spent, should not only be the paymasters but the men from whose pockets the money really came as well. Even if they abolished the compound householder to-morrow by Act of Parliament that individual would continue to exist. The rates would be paid, and the name of the householder would still appear on the Register. When they came to that part of thy Bill dealing with the subject which had been raised, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the matter consideration and accept some compromise on this subject, he would not suggest that the compound householder should be abolished altogether, but that an end should be put to the system whereby he was a compulsory and not a voluntary institution. If the right hon. Gentleman would indicate that there was a chance of his accepting an Amendment to that effect, it would be sufficient to induce many of them not to press the proposal now before the Committee.
§ MR. JEFFREYSsaid, that under the clause the electorate consisted only of those who were on either the Parliamentary or the County Council Register. He maintained that by this Register a great many landowners and occupiers, who were ratepayers in more than one parish in the same Parliamentary Division, would be excluded from voting except in one parish. Surely that would be a great hardship. A man ought to have a vote in each parish in which he paid rates. If he wore charged for parish improvements, surely he ought to have a voice in deciding what those improvements should be. In this matter he was supported by no less an authority than John Stuart Mill, who, in his book on Representative Government, said, with respect to Local Bodies, that the electoral franchise should include all who contributed to the local rates to the exclusion of all who did not. He would not go so far as to say that those who 1350 were not direct ratepayers should he excluded; but he did maintain that all direct ratepayers should have a vote in each of the parishes in which they paid rates. That was a reasonable demand, and he had hoped that the Government would put down an Amendment to meet it. The right hon. Gentleman said that a man paid the rates in his rent. Hut how about those cottagers who did not pay rent at all? In the case of servants who were on the County Council and the Parliamentary Register also, how did they pay rates? And how could it be said that the man who took a house for a term of years at a fixed rent paid rates in his rent if during his occupancy the rates were doubled? In cases in which cottagers paid 1s. or 1s. 6d. a week rent no room was left for rates. The fact was, that in regard to this rural cottage property the owner invariably paid the rates, and the rent was purely nominal. He trusted that the large ratepayers who did not necessarily reside in the parish would not be excluded from the Register.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)rose to join the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down in traversing most minutely the statement of the President of the Local Government Board that cottagers, whoso landlords paid the rates, contributed to those rates in some way. He owned cottage property, and he knew that he did not recover the rates from the rent; and if the rates were to be raised in consequence of the work of the Parish Council, he would not be able to raise his rent. They could not do it in the part of the country in which be lived, and he did not know that the experience of his neighbours differed in any way from his. If through the action of the cottagers the rates were raised and the rents were not raised, he contended that it was the owners and not the cottagers who bore the increased taxation. It was notorious that in many counties an increase of rates had been caused by the County Councils, and yet the cottagers' rents had not been raised. If they had been raised the landlords had enemies in the country who would have made an outcry about the matter. Therefore, it came to this—and the Government would not argue them out of it—that the President of the Local Government Board 1351 was proposing a system whereby one set of men would vote taxation, and another set of men would pay it. There was no escape from that conclusion. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would in some future section or clause or sub-section endeavour to introduce some modification of his present proposal. The question was quite different from that of the Parliamentary or municipal franchise.
§ MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON (Dorset, W.)trusted that when the Government had the opportunity on Clause 10 of remedying the very grave defect in the law against which the Amendment was directed they would do so.
MR. JESSE CODLINGSthought the difference in feeling that had been expressed arose from losing sight of the fact that there were two classes of cottagers and cottage-owners. There was no doubt that the rates of the estate cottages had remained where they were for years, and were likely to remain where they were for years to come. In the open parishes, where the cottages had small owners, the effect of this Bill would undoubtedly be to raise rates all round. If there was an extra 3d. put on the rates an extra 6d. would be put on the rents. Within the last two months he was in a close parish where he saw a cottage the rent of which was so low that it could not possibly pay anything at all. He went to another village at about the same time, and saw a far worse cottage the rent of which was 3s. 6d. He said to the labourer who occupied it —"You cannot afford to pay 3s. 6d. out of your wages," and the man replied— "I cannot get it for less." Hon. Members must make up their minds that in the open parishes this Bill would result in sending rates up all round. The object of the measure was to produce sanitary reforms. Such reforms were wanted in the open parishes ten times more than in the close parishes. Every Report of the Sub-Commissioner of the Commission on Agriculture showed that this would be the case. If one went into the cottages on the estate of the right hon. Member for Bristol one would find cottages with rents from 9d. up to 2s., those at 2s. being excellent cottages. In Pudsey, which was an open village, they 1352 wanted a water supply, and the cottage-owners were in a miserable position, and would do nothing, being apparently willing to let the houses tumble down if they could only get their rents. It was not the speculative builder who was the offender, but the speculative owner who got a little money together and bought a cottage. The result of passing this Bill would be that in the open parishes, where most reforms were needed, the rates would go up all round. The owners of close villages could take this to their comfort, that although they were not likely to be able to raise their rents—because there would be an outcry against them if they did—yet, with certain exceptions, they would not have to go to any expense in sanitary reforms, or, at any rate, to not one tithe of the expense that would be needed in the open districts. He hoped the hon. Member opposite would not press the Amendment, because he felt it to he an impossible one, as the inconvenience of having an individual collection of rates would be so enormous that it could not possibly be carried out. Such a system was tried some 30 years ago, and was abandoned within a year or two.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, hon. Members opposite the other night supported a proposal made on the ground that there would be a considerable disfranchisement of persons enjoying the local vote unless it were adopted. Now gentlemen opposite were proposing an Amendment which would have a considerable disfranchising effect.
§ MR. W. LONGCertainly not. We are not proposing to disfranchise anybody. The only proposal is that the incidence of the rates should be changed from the owner to the occupier, and the occupiers would be thereby enfranchised.
§ SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, it was proposed to abolish compounding.
§ MR. W. LONGUnder this Amendment, certainly not. I certainly hold very strongly that compulsory compounding ought to be abolished, and I hope it will be abolished through the medium of this Bill; but voluntary compounding I do not want to see abolished.
§ Sir C. W. DILKEsaid, he wanted to know what was going to be done. The 1353 system of compounding was almost universal.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, it was only universal in consequence of its having been voluntarily adopted in a large number of cases.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he had taken a large number of cases, and had found that in two-thirds of the rural parishes the resolution in favour of compounding was passed. The state of things varied very much in different parishes, according to whether there was or was not a largo village in the parish; but in the very common case of a rural parish where there was no large village, the effect of the change in this respect would be to disfranchise a considerable number of persons. In one test case in which he had gone into in an ordinary rural parish there were 80 houses, and only 25 ratepayers. The ratepayers included a Railway Company, a Canal Company, six resident farmers, a Vicar, four "gentlemen, professional or retired." four nonresident owners of freeholds, and two shopkeepers. There were 55 houses under the value of £8 outside this list, and the whole of these persons occupying them would be disfranchised under this Amendment. When a, proposal was made to the House for the abolition of compounding, ho believed it would be as strongly resisted by the Local Authorities as the abolition of compounding was resisted in 1867. The result of that abolition was, he believed, the winning of an Election by the Liberal Party in 1868, and in 1869 the law was changed back again. He believed that in such a small rural parish as he had mentioned the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to disfranchise the whole of tin-labourers and the whole of the Nonconformist population.
§ MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)I think it is somewhat unfortunate that both the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Hoard and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down have raised on this Amendment a, discussion of the whole subject. I quite agree that this particular Amendment does not fairly and justly raise the whole question we shall have to discuss, and the Amendment as it stands is open undoubtedly 1354 to some of the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, although, in my opinion, he has exaggerated its effect a good deal. When the right hon. Gentleman went further and discussed the general effect of the proposal on those who now pay their rents indirectly, I think he was guilty of very great exaggeration indeed. Certainly, we do not desire to produce any disfranchisement, and the arguments we have used do not point to any disfranchisement. They point simply to this—that the man who now pays his rates indirectly shall in future pay them directly. We do not want him to pay more, or to be in any way disfranchised; but we want him to recognise that he is a, citizen of the Empire, and that he is paying something towards the cost of local administration. I speak as one living in a district where the labourers do pay their own rates. I should like to ask the Committee to consider what would he really the practical difference between the position of the labourers in this particular district and the position of the labourers in other districts, where they do not pay their rates directly? Can anybody suppose there would be any difference at all? The effect would be that the labourers who now pay their rates indirectly would pay them directly to the rare-collector, and would no longer hand them to the landlord in the form of rent; but there would also be the effect of introducing into the minds of those who were made to pay their rates directly a feeling that they were deeply interested in all that is going on in the government of the parish. I suppose we shall all agree on that point. I ventured to say on the Second Heading of this Bill that I was very much surprised to think that the great Liberal Party no longer supported the great principle of taxation and representation going together. We do support it. We fully admit that in this Bill we cannot introduce that principle altogether, but we want to get as near it as we can. It is not our suggestion, for a moment, on this side of the House that we can altogether abolish voluntary compounding, the main reason being that of convenience. There are, no doubt, places where the system of compounding is found so convenient that it cannot be abolished; 1355 but what we desire to do is to abolish compulsory compounding. I know the Government cannot accept this Amendment; but I ask them to wait until they are able to bring it up on a later stage in a form in which they think it can fairly be accepted.
§ SIR R. PAGETsaid, the speech which had just been delivered had opened up the whole question of compounding. If compounding had not been existence at the present time no one would argue that it ought to be established; on the contrary, the principle now generally accepted was that the people who initiated the public expenditure should be direct contributories to the rates. At the same time, he hoped, after the Debate which had taken place, that his hon. Friend would not think it necessary to go to a Division upon this Amendment. In Scotland, unless he was misinformed, there was no compounding, and the rates were paid out of the smallest holdings, even to those running down to £4 a year, without the least syllable of complaint being raised against their payment. The system of compounding had grown up with the view of easing the work of the Assistant Overseers and rate collectors. It was simply a matter of convenience, and he ventured to submit that it would be all the better for the rates if there were no compounding, as they would then have the 30 per cent, allowed under the Act of 1869. The question was one of serious import, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give it his consideration. If they could, without disfranchising anybody, do away with the compulsory system of compounding, it would be an advantage. Ho trusted when this matter came up for final discussion, and when an attempt was made to do away with compulsory compounding, that they would have the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, hon. Members had some reason to complain of the want of information on the subject. He ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman for figures in support of his assertion that compulsory compounding was universal. They wanted to know in how many parishes Section I of the Act of 1869 had been enforced, for it 1356 was clear that the practicability of stopping these compounding resolutions in the future must, to a great extent, depend on the universality of them in the present. Prom inquiries which he himself had made in a great many parishes in his own neighbourhood, ho believed that Section 4 of the Act of 1869 was not in force at all in many places, though no doubt voluntary compounding existed in those places to a certain extent. They had a right to ask the Government what information they possessed as to compulsory compounding under Section 4. They must, in passing this Bill, pay some regard to the proper incidence of taxation, however much they might wish to promote the convenience of the rate collectors. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had quoted some figures, comparing the number of ratepayers in a given parish with that of householders, but he knew of parishes in his own neighbourhood in which the rates for two-thirds of the cottages were compounded for by the landlord either compulsorily or voluntarily. They, therefore, had this problem to face that two-thirds of the voters under this Bill would not be seriously affected by au increase in the rates. This was a fact which all who wished to see the new system of local government put on a sound and stable footing must be interested in, because it seemed to ignore the old maxim that taxation and representation should go together. He was aware that the present proposal was not one likely to meet with support in the House, but surely they ought to endeavour to secure that those who enjoyed the benefits of the Act shared also the responsibility and burden thereby entailed.
MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, this was a matter of so much importance that it ought not lightly to be passed over by the Committee. The President of the Board of Trade had shown himself disposed to dismiss it as practically unworthy of discussion. As regarded the Amendment, he thought that perhaps it would be better not to press it to a Division, because he, for one, had always contended that the disfranchisement of the compound householder was an untenable proposition and one Parliament was not likely to assent to. At the same time, he equally dis- 1357 sented from the view that one set of ratepayers should call the tune while another paid the piper. It had been suggested that the compulsory compounding system should alone be abolished. He did not hesitate to say that the compound householder, so far as rural areas were concerned, ought to be absolutely abolished. But what would be the result of abolishing merely the compulsory section? The better class of owners would probably take advantage of it; but what ho might call the house sweater—the man who ground his tenants and provided more or less insanitary dwellings—would still have offered to him a distinct incentive to escape his legitimate share of local burdens. What public good did the system of compounding carry with it? Did it carry any good to the community? On every ground of policy it ought to be discouraged. Why should the house sweater have a bribe in the shape of an abatement of 30 or 40 per cent, to compound for the rates? It was a distinct injury to the public interest. It was all very well to say that rates were paid through the rent, hut he challenged anyone to mention a single concrete instance where rates had found their way out of the pockets of the tenants through an increase of rent. It was perfectly notorious that the compound householder might in many cases go to a parish meeting and elect a Parish Council and yet not have a solitary farthing extracted from his pocket for the luxury. And to revert for a moment to the illustration cited by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, it was a fact that the 55 electors whose rates were compounded for would well know that they did not, and never would, pay rates. Yet that was what hon. Gentlemen opposite called popular government! Whatever it was called, it certainly was not a disposal by the people of the rates they paid. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some guarantee that those who paid the rates should have a voice in the disposal of them. The abolition of compulsory compounding alone would settle the question. They must get rid of all kinds of compounding.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONNot having heard a single valid argument against my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ MR. JEFFREYSsaid, he had to move an Amendment the object of which was to exclude lodgers from the Register of Voters. In the course of the last interesting discussion the President of the Local Government Board told them that the tenant of a house paid the rates through the rent, but he had now to recommend his Amendment on the ground that lodgers were persons who paid no rates whatever, and generally were people who did not take much interest in the management of the parish. At the present time lodgers had no vote in the municipal elections, and it should also follow that they ought to have no vote in the election of Parish Councils. He thought this was a, very modest request, and that it would be only reasonable and wise that the lodgers should be precluded from voting.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 1, after the word "person," to insert the words "other than lodgers."—(Mr. Jeffreys.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERThis Amendment really raises the whole question of the Parliamentary franchise. The Parochial Register, as proposed in the Bill, is to consist of two items: first, of the Local Government Register, and then of the Parliamentary Register. The former consists practically of the occupiers, while the latter includes three classes— the non-resident owner, the Service voter, and lodger. I submit to the House that if we take the Parliamentary Register at all we must take it as a whole. In looking at this question we must bear in mind that we are not only dealing with the Parish Council in this Bill, but also with the District Council, and, with them, with the franchise for the election of Guardians. It has always been a principle of Poor Law administration that the owner shall be represented and have a right to vote at the election of Guardians, and the Government do not wish to interfere with that principle. They are, however, seeking to abolish the plural vote. There are Amendments on the Paper for leaving 1359 out the Parliamentary Register altogether. The lodgers are one item in it, and I think it would be more convenient to take the whole discussion together. Under these circumstances, I venture to ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not assent to that proposition, as there were reasons why the lodger question should be discussed by itself. Everybody would admit that whatever might be the actual incidence of the rates, the owner of the land would be compelled to contribute towards the expenditure, and he was therefore entitled to have a voice in the selection of those who were to constitute the Parish Council. But the question of the lodgers was altogether different, and he quite understood the difficulty of the Government's position. Still, he was sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not desire to do anything unjust or unfair. As a matter of fact, the lodger constituted a very small item in the electorate. In the great majority of rural parishes the lodger was non-existent. As soon as a man was old enough to leave home be found a wife and took a home for himself, and consequently he at once became a voter under this Bill. But very different cases might arise. When large railway canal, or other works were in the course of construction in a neighbourhood men were brought in in large numbers and lodged in the rural villages, and it would be nothing less than a gross injustice that those men should have the right to initiate local expenditure, to elect a Council to carry out work to their liking, and then, after a year or two, to shake the dust off their feet, leaving others to bear the burden. That was an anomaly that ought, if possible, to be avoided. It should be borne in mind that in Imperial and other matters the lodger had not that temptation to interfere which he might have in village matters, where the resources of life might be too antiquated for his demands, and ho would consequently be likely to vote for those who would introduce changes in accordance with his views. Ho thought the hardship involved in that was sufficiently serious to merit the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, the speech they had just heard had made him more than ever impressed with the necessity of postponing this Amendment. It seemed to him that the hon. Gentleman had got in his mind au imaginary danger. What was the lodger? A person who held lodgings which, if let unfurnished, would he of the clear yearly value of £10.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman had followed some recent decisions in the Revision Courts he would be aware that practically the £10 qualification was not insisted upon, and it had practically ceased to be a factor in the case. In his district lodgers were put on the Register utterly regardless of the value of their lodgings.
§ MR. COURTNEYcontended that, inasmuch as this was a Parliamentary qualification, it was a most extravagant suggestion to say that Revising Barristers gave the vote where the qualification did not exist. There was an objection to putting lodgers on the Register. It was said that the sons of opulent farmers living with their father could be put on the Register as lodgers; but his impression was that the claims to be put on the Register as lodgers under this Bill would not be numerous. In most rural parishes the only lodger to be enfranchised would be the curate. It was idle to say that in the rent he paid for his rooms the lodger did not contribute to the rates, for if the rates were high the lodgings would go up; and if he had lived long enough in the parish there was every reason why he, as a man who knew what was going on, should be put upon the local Register. It was, however, premature to discuss this part of the question until they had decided whether the Parliamentary Register should form part of the Register under this Bill.
§ MR. DARLING (Deptford)said, ho should like his hon. Friend, before he withdrew his Amendment, to consider whether the question could really be discussed more conveniently later on. He would warn hon. Gentlemen from accepting assurances from the Government that au issue could be discussed at a later stage, seeing that upon another Bill points had been postponed upon these assurances, and then this same particular Government—for they had not 1361 changed them yet, although they were nearer to it than they had been—adopted a method of procedure which entirely precluded the discussion of the points.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. STRACHEY moved, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "such portion either of." It was the first of two Amendments with the object of eliminating the Parliamentary Register of electors from the clause. He could not see why the Government should add the Parliamentary franchise to the local government franchise, instead of allowing them to have under this Bill the franchise they had got under the Bill of 1888, which was much simpler and easier to work. It might be said that the advantage of the Parliamentary franchise was that it included the freeholder and the lodger. For himself, he would not desire to leave the lodger out in the cold, if the lodger franchise was a democratic franchise. But at present the lodger franchise in the rural districts gave voles to the upper classes and upper middle classes, to the sons of the, squire, the clergyman, the larger tradesmen and farmers, while, on the other hand, it did not enfranchise the sons of the small farmer or trader, or agricultural labourer or mechanic, audit was not desirable to have a privileged class on the Register. There were also those who possessed the service franchise through living in lodges or houses that were not separately rated. He did not wish to disfranchise these people. It was a mere question of rating, and could be settled by their being assessed separately by the Assessment Committee. The principal question was raised by the inclusion of freeholders in this class of voters. To include the freeholders in a local government franchise would be a new departure. It certainly would be so in the parish meeting. He did not think the Committee was likely to approve of a system of plural voting. In Parliamentary and it all local elections the principle of One Man One Vote should prevail. That meant that the occupier only should vote, because he chiefly was interested in local affairs, and it was not right to give to absent freeholders the power of swamping the resident villagers. The proposal was a dangerous one, be- 1362 cause it would lead to the creation of fagot votes by which the occupiers would be swamped. In the Debate on the Local Government Bill of 1888 the President of the Local Government Board dealt with this question of the Parliamentary franchise as affecting local government. Speaking upon an Amendment to the Local Government Bill of 1888, by which it was proposed to permit the freeholder to qualify for the County Council Register, the right hon. Member said that the Amendment would practically create a new Register, and asked whether the Government were prepared to extend the qualification to fagot voters, who have not assessed for any rates which the County Council administered. In the same spirit he now asked whether the Government were prepared to introduce a new qualification for local elections; whether they were ready to recognise the qualification of the fagot voter, who would not be assessed for any rate raised by the Parish Council. The Parliamentary freeholder would not be assessed in respect of such rates, and to give him the right to vote them would violate the principle that representation should go with taxation.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2. line 1, to leave out the words "such portion either of."—(Mr. Strachey.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"
§ * MR H. H. FOWLERI do not think that the number of fagot voters created for the purpose of voting for Parish Councils is likely to be considerable. Whilst adhering to my view that tenants whose rates are paid for them by their landlords do themselves pay in their routs a fair proportion of the rates, I am bound to admit, as a matter of fact, that a portion of the rate must be paid, and is paid, by the owner of property. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin has just said that we want to got all persons interested in the parish into touch with this organisation, and I am of opinion that the owners of property in a parish have considerable interest in the prosperity, organisation, and taxation of the parish. Then, coupled with that fact, it must be remembered that it is an essen- 1363 tial and integral part of this Bill that we should deal with the election of Guardians of the Poor Law, and the Government are not prepared to propose that owners of property shall be excluded from all participation in the election of these Guardians. As to the service franchise, I do not look upon it in the same light as my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend speaks of the custom in the South West of England. But in the North of England it will be a serious matter to exclude the service franchise. We have received strong complaints that labourers living in houses provided for them by their employers—farmers in most cases—are excluded from the County Council franchise. It seems to me desirable that the residents in a parish, even when living in cottages for which they pay no rent, should have a voice in the administration of the parish. In the circumstances, it is the opinion of the Government that the Register should consist of the local government registered electors and the Parliamentary registered electors. It-seems to me that the inclusion of the Parliamentary franchise is a very fair compromise and adjustment of conflicting interests. I should be sorry to exclude from the franchise either the owner or the lodger, or the possessor of the service franchise.
§ * SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, that up to two years ago in rural districts the Parliamentary lodger did not exist, but that during the last two years this class of voters had been created in great numbers; in fact, there was danger lest the real opinions of constituencies should be swamped by the creation of fagot lodger votes, in the creation of which a certain amount of conscious fraud was often involved. The number of lodgers who really fulfilled the requirements of the law was very small. Not long ago in many a district an occasional curate was the only bonâ fide electoral lodger. Now, however, a great number of farmers' sons had been put upon the Register, although they had no separate lodging. In Loudon, of course, things were very different, and the lodger was a very real person indeed. With regard to the service franchise, he thought his right hon. Friend somewhat exaggerated its importance. They could hardly find 1364 in all rural England an Overseer who understood what the service franchise was. In two of the Divisions of Cumberland and Westmoreland, where, if anywhere, the hind system prevailed, there was not one person with the service franchise. All had been put on Division I., as though they were ordinary occupiers. It would be easy by a change in the form of the service franchise to make this practice universal, as it was nearly universal from the confusion in the Overseers' minds, and to place all service franchise voters on the Occupation List. Although the service franchise had been intended for the extreme North of England and for the South of Scotland to meet the case of shepherds, it was only in London that it had become important, and this in spite of the fact that in 1884 it had not been intended for the case of London. In London the service voter, as the lodger, was an important personage, and in his (Sir C. Dilke's) own ward of his own parish there were hundreds of coachmen who possessed the service franchise. The third class enfranchised by the Government proposal for the first time in local elections was the class of non-resident freeholders. The Government could not hope permanently to treat this class in the feeble and partial manner in which it was proposed by this Bill to treat them. It would be impossible to confine the ownership voter to the rural districts and London, and if he were enfranchised, as the Bill enfranchised him, for local elections in London and the rural districts, he would have to be enfranchised in the boroughs and the County Council elections also. The difficulty of the Government was this: they were enfranchising the ownership voter in his capacity as a Parliamentary voter. Yet they were pledged next year to disfranchise him when he was non-resident with the cry, "One Man One Vote." This was an absurd position. On the other hand, there was indeed a strong case for the local enfranchisement of the non-resident freeholder, but it would have been more complete had the Government proposed, as in his opinion they ought to have proposed, the division of the rate. The course which they were taking was illogical, and, although he would not himself take the responsibility of opposing it, yet full responsibility must 1365 rest upon the Government for so unsatisfactory a treatment of the question.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere are two things which struck me forcibly in this Debate. One was the obvious fact that the subject we are discussing is one of extreme difficulty and complexity. The other is not so obvious. It is, that there is no real difference of opinion in any part of the House as to the object we desire to attain. Our difficulties are great, but they are difficulties of procedure. I do not believe that in the mind of any sober-minded man there is any real difference of opinion as to the object at which we ought, to aim. Every man who is interested in the welfare of a parish, and who subscribes towards the carrying out of its affairs, ought to have a vote in the management of those affairs. These are principles which no one will deny, and that they are objects worth striving for I do not think any one will dispute, whether he sits amongst the followers of the Government, or amongst the critics on this side, or amongst the still severer critics on the other side. We have to consider the broad line we should take on the Amendment, which deals with the Parliamentary franchise. That franchise, as everybody knows after the most able speech of the right hon. Baronet who has just spoken, deals with three classes of persons — the lodger, the service voter, and the freeholder. As regards the lodger, I think that speech went a long way towards vindicating the accuracy of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, who made a speech just now, in which he described the condition of certain parishes within his own knowledge where the ordinary and normal inhabitants had been flooded by a population brought in for the purpose of carrying out some great railway or canal work, and who were lodgers. These persons were put upon the Register as voters. As voters in the Parish Council, they would deal with the rates of the parish, and when their work was finished they would vanish from the district, the rates they might levy remaining as a, memorial of their presence. The light hon. Member for Bodmin has doubted whether that could be so, but the right hon. Baronet has explained it by the fact that the interpretation of the law by the Revising Barrister is somewhat 1366 lax, and even generous, and the right hon. Gentleman admits that he knew of fraudulent eases in which persons were put upon the lodger list who had no title to be there. That may be very important in the parishes to which reference has been made. We are bound to look after the interests of those parishes, but they are not very numerous, for the places where great public works are carried on in this country are restricted. As to the service franchise, the right hon. Baronet has told us, and told us with perfect truth, that this franchise was devised lo meet the cases of shepherds and ploughmen in the South of Scotland and North of England, but that, as a matter of fact, hardly any service voters appear on the Register. I do not go into that fact, but I think it may be due to the circumstance that in many parts of England, and in some parts of Scotland, service is taken, not for a year, but for six months, and the migratory habits prevalent in the districts where service exists must have a great effect upon the Register. But I do not think it would be possible to omit the service franchise. In the part of Scot-laud in which I live—and the practice there is almost analogous to the English practice — to disfranchise the service voter would be to prevent the whole of the agricultural population from having a vote at all. With regard to the freeholder, the right hon. Gentleman has argued with great force that if we include in the Register of voters for Parish Councils the owner we shall be driven to put the freeholder on the Municipal Register. I think that that is a conclusion which, sooner or later, must come; but I do not think there is any objection to the freeholder on the ground of fagot voting. Through no fault of my own I am a fagot voter, as I know to my great annoyance and regret at the time of a General Election. I find it impossible to register my vote even at a Parliamentary election. And is it likely that I or any other human being would travel down to a parish in the affairs of which we have no concern to vote at the Parish Council election? I think that under this Bill the fagot voters maybe ignored, because those who now exist are gradually dying out, and while they continue to exist they are not likely to trouble themselves much about the 1367 changes and chances of Party division in parishes. How about the freeholders? I quite agree that the owner pays his share of the rates. He certainly, at the present moment, pays part of the rates. Every time he lets a farm or a cottage at a commercial rent the whole burden of the rates is undoubtedly thrown upon his shoulders. I quite admit that the occupier pays the rate when he is a farmer of long standing, and when no new contract has been made with the owner. But wherever there is a re-adjustment of contract, whether in a farm or a cottage, undoubtedly there the whole rate is thrown on the owner. In these circumstances, it appears to me to be absurd to exclude the owner from this franchise, whether he is resident or non-resident; and if the Committee accept the Amendment steps must be taken in some other way to introduce the owner as a most important factor in connection with parish interests. The Government may or may not be wrong in adopting the Parliamentary Register. They have taken a rough-and-ready way to a result which, on the whole, is a desirable one. If they choose to omit the lodger, or the fagot voter, I should not greatly object; but they must not cut out of the Bill the service and the freeholder franchises. It may be desirable to devise a simpler method of retaining these two elements of parish life than that adopted; but I should be disposed to support the Government as regards this portion of the framework of the Bill, though I believe that a more perfect system might be developed if the Committee are prepared to go through the labour of devising a new and rather complicated Register for carrying out the object in view.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL,who was indistinctly heard, was understood to say that he doubted whether lodgers had any right to be included. Though he did not think the service franchise was of much importance in the portion of the country with which he was connected, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was only fair that the owner should have a voice in parochial affairs. It was doubtful whether the Government plan was a better one than if they had adhered lo the ordinary county franchise. Upon the whole, he was inclined to vote in favour of the Amendment he had on the Paper, though he might be further enlightened on the subject.
§ MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)said, that hon. Members on both sides were interested in maintaining and developing parochial administration, but it would be absolutely fatal to it if they created a large and irresponsible electorate, and he was afraid that would be done. He wished to see the powers of parochial administration greatly increased, and particularly that the administration of outdoor relief should be given to the parishes. He thought the House should weigh well the evils which would be likely to accrue from throwing the whole Register open.
§ MR. LEES KNOWLESsaid, that the hon. Member for Crewe, in consequence of the Instruction to the Committee carried the other night, had down on the Paper an Amendment by which, in addition to the lodger list at present existing, there would spring into existence a list of all the women, both married and single, who would be on the list if they were men. That would considerably increase the number of lodgers, and as a new Registration Bill was in contemplation, with a six-monthly qualification, he thought it was a serious consideration for the Committee whether they should include the lodger franchise in the Bill.
§ MR. J. H. JOHNSTONE (Horsham, Sussex)said, he would remind the Committee that both the lodger and service franchise voters had a substantial interest in the welfare of the parish, and they ought, therefore, to be retained on the Parish Register.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 236; Noes 20.—(Division List, No. 324.)
§ It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.