SIXTH NIGHT.

HC Deb 24 November 1893 vol 18 cc1708-83

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Parish meetings.)

*MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved, in page 2, line 18, after "but," to insert "the expenses of a poll." He had endeavoured to show the other day that it was unjust to lay down a scale of expenditure, for the parish meeting at all events. The expenses of those meetings would be in most cases very petty, and he believed that the effect of laying down a scale of expenditure would be, in the great majority of cases, to tend to increase the expenditure rather than to lower it. A scale must always provide for the maximum amount of expenses, but, as they all knew, when a maximum was once laid down, it became the usual amount that was charged.

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

I accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, after the word "but," to insert the words "expenses of a poll."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

*MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury) moved— In page 2, line 19, to leave out "County Council, or in default of that Council," and insert "parish meeting, or in default of the parish meeting. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the parish meeting should frame the scale of expenses at parish elections. There was some objection to the parish meeting framing the scale of fees for its own election, but he did not think that objection came from the Government side of the House. They had heard on several occasions that the agricultural population was not capable of transacting public business. The present agricultural labourers, at till events, were wise in their generation, for they had placed a Liberal Government in Office, and they expected that they would be assisted in their parish work by the Government. It seemed to him that the Bill itself showed that the parish meeting wits it wholely competent body for the purpose of framing its own scale of fees. In the first place, the Bill gave power to the parish meeting of appointing its own Overseer, but there was no demand on the part of the County Council to fix the scale of fees or remuneration to Overseers. Again, the Bill said that the parish meeting should appoint its own returning officer, and he could not understand why, if the parish meeting was capable of choosing a returning officer, it could not also decide the fees that should be given to that officer. The Parish Council acted as a body under the command of the parish meeting, and there was nothing in the Bill to limit the power of the parish itself to give what salaries or emoluments they liked to the officers appointed to carry out the work. Again, there was it power of acquiring land, and there wits nothing in the Bill to limit the parish in the fees they paid to lawyers for the transfer of land. Then it seemed to be it new departure that the County Council should have the power of fixing these fees, because the Parish Council had the power of carrying out the adopted Acts. There were certain elections to be carried out under the adopted Acts, and in these cases they found that the Churchwardens were the persons authorised to carry out the elections of the officers. This power had been exercised for so long that he could not understand why there should be an interference with it now on the part of the County Council in the fixing of the scale. It seemed to him almost tin insult to the large parishes to say that they were not capable of fixing their own scale of fees for themselves in the case of election officers, and, its regarded the small parishes, they ought to have an opportunity now of being educated in those duties of citizenship which now, happily, were part of the education of the young, introduced by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. If it should be found difficult for the parish meeting to carry out the elections, the better way would be for the Local Government Board to issue certain directions which could be given through the Overseers.

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

rising to a point of Order, said, he did not think the hon. Member knew what the Amendment was. It was simply the expenses of the poll, whereas the hon. Member was dealing with a great number of expenses which were utterly foreign to the subject of the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he hoped the hon. Member would keep to the point.

* MR. FULLER

said, he was discussing the framing of a scale of expenses for the taking of the poll, and he thought the parish meeting should do that, as he did not see how the County Council could frame the expenses in an equitable way. The difference of rateable value in the several parishes was such as to make it next to impossible.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland),

rising to it point of Order, asked the Chairman whether it was not a fact that the only power the County Council was to have was to frame it scale for the expenses of the poll. If that were so, he submitted that all reference to expenses and to the rateability of parishes had nothing to do with the question.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is so.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words "County Council, or in default of that Council," and insert the words "parish meeting, or in default of the parish meeting."—(Mr. Fuller.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Amendment has been altered so as to confine it entirely to the expense of the poll, and what is the cheapest and best way of framing a scale. I think it is the desire of everybody that the scale should be as economical as possible. My idea was that we would be more likely to get the cheapest scale from the County Council. I do not wish it myself; but if the Committee wishes it, I am prepared to insert the words—"with the consent of the Local Government Board." [Cries of "No!"] I am quite prepared to trust the County Councils.

MR. JESSE COLLINS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he thought his right hon. Friend under-estimated the importance of the Amendment. It should be remembered that a large number of parishes were extremely poor, and under the proceedings of the Parish Councils he took it that there would be a great number of polls. He believed that the parish meetings would do the business much more economically. In France a great deal of that kind of work was done gratuitously, and it was quite probable that that would prove to be the case in parishes in this country.

MR. STOREY

said, his right hon. Friend had not noticed the form of the Bill. The words were that the scale was "not to exceed." The object was that the County Council should fix the scale, so as to secure moderation, but the carrying of it out would be in the hands of the parish meeting.

MR. WHARTON

said, he was quite sure that the parish meetings would be in good hands if they entrusted their economics to the County Council. He was a returning officer himself to a County Council, and he could tell the Committee that the first election was conducted on the Sheriff's scale, and the second on their own, the hitter costing half the amount. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the words of the clause.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, that, though, as a rule, he was a supporter of the County Council, yet on this particular point his sympathies were rather with his hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire. There was a considerable difference between the County Council committee drawing the scale for its own elections, and drawing the scale in the case of these parishes. They would have to lay down a scale which would have to be a maximum scale, suitable to the large parishes. The expenses could not always follow the exact limits of population, though they might to some extent. In the case of the small parishes, with the number of polls they would have under this Bill, he thought it was essential that they should be allowed to conduct them as simply and cheaply as possible, and he confessed that he feared many of them would be misled by a scale laid down by a higher authority—a scale which, if it was to be one hitherto laid down by County Councils, must be laid down on a professional basis, which would not suit the humble circumstances of a small parish. He thought the Government would be well advised if between this and Clause 35 they devised some scheme for a less expensive kind of poll than that laid down. The Government might well consider whether it would not be wiser in the interests of economy to allow the parish meeting, in the first instance, or the Parish Council, when it was created, to lay down a scale which should have the consent of the County Council.

* MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He could not share the fears of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, nor could he understand upon what they were based. The hon. Member for Sunderland had pointed out that what was proposed was that the maximum scale should be fixed by the County Council. If parishes were desirous, as he had no doubt they would be, that their expenses should be on the lowest possible scale, there would be nothing to prevent them from doing the work gratuitously. He believed himself that a great deal of the administration of this parochial business would be done voluntarily by the people. He thought there would be no difficulty in getting the unpaid assistance of people resident in the parish, and he did not think that the mere fact that the County Council should fix a scale would affect the matter at all. It was unquestionably desirable that there should be uniformity in the practice. If they had different parishes adopting totally different rates, he did not think the result would be good administration. The County Council could be well trusted in the matter. He hoped the Government would be supported in standing by this provision.

* MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Wiltshire would persist in his Amendment, otherwise great risk would be incurred of extravagance. With regard to the scale by the County Council, at first the uncontested elections of the Somersetshire County Council the amount was fixed at eleven guineas, and was subsequently only reduced to seven guineas, whereas in the County of Lincolnshire, he was informed that now an uncontested election only cost a guinea. It would not be right to allow the County Council to fix the maximum without the consent of the parish meeting.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he must also urge the hon. Gentleman to persist in his Amendment, as he believed it to be a sound and proper one. The authorities responsible for the Bill had refused to give the parish meeting liberty, even as regarded its own hours of meeting. He certainly thought it should have a small amount of liberty given it. They did not require uniformity in matters of this kind. It was not necessary that the machinery should be uniform as regarded large and small parishes. Therefore, he thought the parish meeting ought to be allowed to fix its own maximum scale. Having accepted the last Amendment they had decided that they had got to this: that the expenses were not to exceed a certain limit. There was no limit put.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The words are that the expenses incidental to the parish meeting are to fixed by the parish meeting.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that surely, of all things incidental to the parish meeting, the poll was the most important. If it was reasonable to leave the ordinary expenses of the parish meeting and the incidental expenses to the meeting itself, it was surely proper and necessary that that should include the poll.

SIR W. HARCOURT

This is a point which is not of first-rate import- auce. The pros and cons have been clearly stated, and I think we may now take the opinion of the Committee upon it in order to clear the ground.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he did not agree with the clause as it now stood, nor entirely with the Amendment. But he thought that they ought not to have that uniformity which some Members were so anxious for. It was totally absurd that the expenses of a poll in the case of parishes of from 500 to 1,000 electors and of parishes where there were only 20 or 30 electors should be the same, and, therefore, he thought that the smaller parishes ought to be allowed to fix the amount of the expenditure they wanted to incur. He suggested that the words should run— The parish meeting, or, in default thereof by the County Council. He did not wish the matter to go before the Local Government Board, and he thought his proposal would be a very fair compromise.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved an Amendment, in line 19, to leave out the words after the first word "Council" to the end of the sub-section. He said his object here, as well as elsewhere, was to get rid of the over-riding influence of the Local Government Board. If they were going to give further liberty to the parishes they should keep the Local Government Board out of the business altogether.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the first "Council" to end of sub-section.—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the words were simply inserted as a precaution.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells) moved the following Amendment:— In page 2, line 20, at end, insert—"In every parish not having a Parish Council the parish meeting shall be a body corporate by the name of the parish assembly, with the addition of the name of the parish, and shall have perpetual succession, and may hold land for the purposes of their powers and duties without licence in mortmain, and any act, of the parish assembly may be signified by an instrument executed at a meeting of the parish assembly under the hands, or, if an instrument under seal is required, under the hands and seals of the chairman and two other members of the assembly.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think the proper place for this Amendment, which is a very important one, should be on Clause 18, which deals with the whole question of the powers of the parish meeting, and if the hon. Baronet would postpone it until then it would be very convenient, and would give the Government an opportunity of considering the matter.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion he would postpone this matter until they reached Clause 18.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said, he had no doubt the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman would apply to him also, he having an Amendment down. But he should not like to allow the matter to pass without asking a further question of the President of the Local Government Board. The structure of the Bill had been much changed since the beginning in this respect: At first there was to be a network of Parish Councils covering the whole country. Either each parish was to have a Council or it was to be grouped with another parish which was to have one. Of course, there would not be a network of Parish Councils covering the whole country, and he submitted that before they parted with this clause they should have from the right hon. Gentleman a clearer statement of what he proposed should be the government in those parishes where there would be no Parish Councils.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will put the Amendments down, and they will appear on the Paper to-morrow.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, the Amendment which he had put down covered certain of the ground of the last Amendment, but it also suggested that all the powers, duties, and liabilities which a Parish Council would have, if it had been established and had come into office, should vest in the parish meeting, and that upon a Parish Council being established it should be the successor of the parish meeting, and thereupon all the powers, duties, and liabilities of the parish meeting should then vest in the Parish Council, which should be considered in law as being the same person. That was one solution—to let the parish meeting be in fact, though not in name, the Parish Council until a Parish Council was established, and thus let the Parish Council be the successor. He had put down his Amendment, not dogmatically, but suggestively; and although the right hon. Gentleman had put down Amendments, he thought he should let them know before they passed Clause 2, which dealt with the parish meeting, what was the general nature of his scheme for dealing with the government of parishes where no Parish Council was established, and where for many years it might not be established.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

did not think that course would be conducive to public convenience or the economy of time, as it would raise another Debate on these points. He had carried out all the obligations he had entered into with the House, but it would not be fair until the whole scheme was before the Committee to discuss the question.

* SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean),

who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 2, line 22, at end, add,—"(8) The provisions of this section, but not the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, shall apply to common vestries of parishes in urban districts as well as to parish meetings for rural parishes, said, he did not propose to move it; but it might be convenient if the President of the Local Government Board would state what he proposed to do with these common Vestries. The reason he did not propose to move the Amendment here was because it would be more convenient to deal together with common Vestries and select Vestries. There were select Vestries under Hobhouse's Act and select Vestries by custom. The latter varied very much amongst themselves.

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

I rise to Order. There is no Question before the House.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Baronet is entitled to move his Amendment formally.

SIR C. W. DILKE

I move it.

THE CHAIRMAN

Before that takes place I understand that for the convenience of the Committee the right hon. Baronet is asking a question of the President of the Local Government. If the Amendment is seriously moved I must say that, in my opinion, at this stage of the Bill it is out of Order.

SIR C. W. DILKE

I beg to give notice that I shall bring up a new clause to deal with select and special Vestries unless my right hon. Friend intends to do so. Perhaps it would be convenient if he would tell us.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said the question would arise on a later clause.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Constitution of Parish Council).

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

rose to move the following Amendment:— In page 2, line 23, after "shall," insert "be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish only, and shall. He said, that on the Amendment he moved two or three evenings ago the President of the Local Government Board was good enough to say that when they reached the constitution of the Parish Council he might be able to make some concession to them with regard to the universal admission of outsiders into the Parish Council which at present existed under the Bill. Several of his hon. Friends had got Amendments on the Paper to some extent, though not in principle, differing from his. His object in moving this Amendment was not so much to tie down the electorate for the Parish Council to the actual electors of any one parish, but to recognise that the Parish Council should consist of men who really were interested in the locality. Of course, if any other Amendment would carry out that proposal better he should be perfectly willing to withdraw in its favour, but he thought they must maintain the principle that these Parish Councils ought to be manned by men who had a distinct interest in the locality. Under the Bill as it stood it was quite possible that the whole of any Parish Council should be elected from men coming from London, and it would be quite possible, too, for these men so elected to choose an outsider as Chairman. It was against that principle he objected. He would go so far as to say they ought not to have the right of choosing a Chairman outside their body altogether, but that was a subject for a separate Amendment. There were strong reasons why the Bill as it stood should be objected to, because these villages, throughout the length and breadth of England, differed from one another almost as much as adjoining estates differed from one another. A man from Dorsetshire who came on to a Parish Council in Staffordshire would be utterly at sea, and would know nothing whatever of the particular locality for which he was legislating. There was only one reason he saw in favour of his own Amendment as against the Amendment of the Member for Salford or the right hon. Member for Bordesley. He limited his Amendment to the electors of the parish, and in favour of that particular proposal he pointed to the fact that it ensured taxation and representation going together. If they took people from outside—even from adjoining parishes—they need not have any connection with the village for which the Parish Council had been established, and they would, therefore, be representing a parish for which they paid no taxation whatever. Another reason why he should like to see this or a similar Amendment carried was that it seemed to argue great distrust of the labourer that they should require the assistance of an outsider from London or anywhere else to come to advocate his cause in the Parish Council. He could not see that it was either in the interest of the landowner or of the farmer that this outsider should be brought in, so that it must clearly be in the interest of the agricultural labourer. But was he not capable of taking care of himself? It showed a distrust of the agricultural labourer, which, he was sorry to say, had run too much throughout many clauses of this Pill. They had been afraid to trust him with the hours of the parish meeting, with the particular form of government, but they had made no provision for the hour suppose he was to be on the Parish Council, and now they had proposals in the Bill which apparently assumed he was not fit to legislate for himself, and must have outsiders to assist him. Some Amendment such as he proposed ought to be adopted so as to keep these local affairs in the hands of local people, who knew the wants of the locality. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, after the word "shall," to insert the words "be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish only, and shall."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

"SIR C. W. DILKE

observed that this question was fully discussed in 1870 during the Debates on the Education Act. He remembered Mr.Forster coming down to the House and, although he was not looked upon as an extreme Liberal, making a strong defence indeed of the democratic principle of the choice of the elector being unlimited and absolutely free, and that view prevailed, and that matter was left to Rules to be made by the Education Department with an expression of the strong opinion of Mr. Forster that the choice should be as wide as possible. All the difficulties which the hon. Member had pointed out might possibly occur under the Bill as it stood could equally occur under the School Board system, but they never had occurred. The hon. Member for Preston suggested that it would be possible for a district to choose an outsider or to choose the whole of the Parish Council from London. It would be possible for any School Board for a rural or urban district to do so, but it had never done so yet. Practically, the working of the system was to give a free choice to the elector to choose whomsoever he thought was best qualified to serve him. He thought the principle laid down in the Bill was far more defensible than any other, and if his right hon. Friend had been willing to defend that principle adopted in the Bill in the same way as Mr. Forster defended that principle from attack against every portion of the House of Commons—and succeeded in carrying that view in the Education Act—he should have supported his right hon. Friend. But he heard the other day words fall from the right hon. Gentleman which made him conclude that on this point he was willing to defer to the representations made to him from different parts of the country; therefore, he feared it was too late to press the general view in favour of the Bill as it now stood. As practical men, what they had to consider was what alternative they should adopt. He was bound to say that amongst the various alternatives—all of which greatly limited the choice or the freedom of the local elector—he should prefer residence in the parish, or the neighbourhood of the parish, to a strict qualification of an electorate within the parish itself. The more democratic view was to give more choice to the elector, and if they were to limit him absolutely to the electors of a parish in some rare cases they might shut him out from choosing for the Parish Council some person in whom he had great confidence and whom he would like to have appointed, and to his mind they would gain nothing by the limitation. In 99 cases out of 100 persons who would be actually chosen would be electors in the parish, but the one-hundreth case was the one where they left the door open, and where a man who was not an elector of the parish might be a very desirable man to elect on the Parish Council. They had decided that small parishes were not to be grouped without their consent, and that meant practically that some of them would not be grouped. The smaller the parishes they had the more certain it was there would be a difficulty with regard to obtaining people, and the more necessary it was to give freedom of choice in this respect. He knew a small parish which was likely to have a Parish Council, although it was not certain it would receive one. If it should receive one he was bound to say there was one man who lived in an adjoining parish, but who had considerable connection with the parish which would have the Council, who probably would be one of the best members that could possibly be found in that body. Therefore, he should prefer residence, in the wider sense, to include the neighbourhood instead of actual residence within the narrow limits of the parish. He would mention another matter which would show that difficulties would arise if they limited very closely the choice within parochial boundaries. In the case of all parishes which had been dealt with under the Divided Parishes Act from time to time, they had the parochial charities of the parish now belonging to people who lived in other parishes. In one particular case he had in mind the parish now had a limited population. It was, 20 years ago, before the Divided Parishes Act, ten times as populous as it was at the present time, but being in a great number of pieces the whole of these pieces had been detached from it and added to larger parishes. But under the Divided Parishes Act the inhabitants of a small parish were not the only persons who were entitled to the charities of that parish, the persons living in neighbouring parishes to which parts of that parish had been added being entitled to participate in the charities. That fact had given a very close connection indeed in parochial government between two or other neighbouring parishes. He did not believe these parishes would be grouped; most of them were fairly large, and would have Parish Councils. But it was in that particular case that the gentleman who was the manager of the parish charities, and did not live in the parish, should be capable of being elected. He had mentioned that particular case as the type of many cases which might arise in different parts of the country, and he would press for the widest extension of the principle of election that could be given in the Bill. If they were driven from the principle in the Bill itself he hoped residence in the neighbourhood might be chosen.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I do not know why it should be considered a democratic; principle that persons having nothing whatever to do with the affairs of a place should be entitled to govern it. That appears to me to be absolutely contrary, so far as I understand them, to the true principles of democracy, but the right hon. Baronet is a greater authority on that point than I am. I am glad to understand, from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the other day, that be is practically prepared to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend behind me. The point which appears to be a question of doubt, and which was raised by the right hon. Baronet, is whether a person residing in the parish, or residing just outside the parish in the adjoining parish, but who is not himself or herself an elector of the parish, should be qualified as a Parochial Councillor? It appears to me the simpler and easier thing to do would be what my hon. Friend behind me proposes—namely, to confine the right of election to the electors themselves. But if it is necessary for any purpose—which I confess I do not understand—to go beyond that, I really fail to see why a person residing out of the parish and not having any interest in the parish qualifying him to be an elector should be any more entitled to be a Parochial Councillor in a rural parish in England than if he lived in London and had an interest there. I think the right to election ought, at any rate, to be confined to those connected with the parish itself. I believe that view is widely and generally entertained—quite apart from political opinion or anything of the kind—in all rural parishes. They do not like interference from outside. They are quite as jealous, perhaps more so, of neighbouring parishes to themselves than they are to any other part of the country. They want to manage their own affairs themselves. It was that this Bill, I imagined, was intended to promote, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

MR. CHANGING (Northampton, E.)

thought the President of the Local Government Board was well advised in surrendering this portion of the Bill, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be able to devise a good solution of the question raised. He thought, from his experience of rural villages, that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite was the prevalent opinion in villages and parishes. He would point out one omission in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston—that was, he did not, refer to any grouped parishes at all, and he was quite sure, from what he knew, that there would be a certain number of grouped parishes in spite of the past discussions in the House; therefore, it would be necessary, in case the Amendment were adopted, that some words should be introduced to cover the case of grouped parishes. What would meet the general view of County Members on his side of the House would largely be the adoption of the principle of residence, and also the principle of the parochial elector. For his part, he thought the most equitable solution would be to confine it to the resident parochial electors, and they might go so far with advantage as to include not only the parish itself or the grouped parishes, but also the adjoining parishes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would offer them a solution which would meet their views on a question on which he believed both sides of the House were practically agreed.

MR. HANBURY

wished to point out that his Amendment did meet the case mentioned by the last speaker. In Clause 1 it was distinctly stated that grouped parishes would form a parish under this Bill.

* MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

expressed the hope that the President of the Local Government Board would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton. Most of them were familiar with cases in the market towns and county districts where there were large numbers of owners owning little property in the villages around, who, if this limitation were adopted, would be disqualified from acting on the Parish Councils of such villages. The term "parochial electors" could not be improved, but if they attached the further condition that he must reside in the village, they would deprive many efficient men of the power of becoming Parish Councillors.

SIR R. PAGET

said, what they were endeavouring to do was to secure efficient and economic administration, and to get the residents and people of a parish interested in its welfare to come and meet together and take part in its affairs. That sound economical administration, he apprehended, would best be provided for by entrusting the duty of managing the affairs of the parish to those who had got a personal interest in the locality. The Amendment embraced those who were most personally interested, and most likely to administer the affairs of the parish effectively and economically. A good deal of stress had been laid on the individualities and antagonism and rivalries of separate parishes. That was a very potent factor, and there was a very healthy rivalry among parishes. They ought to endeavour to maintain the parishes as a unit; the electors of the parish were those who would best represent it, and he did not think they could go wrong in accepting the Amendment.

* MR. H. L. LAWSON (Gloucester, Cirencester)

desired to see the parish managing its own affairs through men who were not outsiders, but he did not think hon. Gentlemen had sufficiently taken into account the technicalities and disqualifications of our Register. It seemed to him that it would be a dangerous thing to adopt the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston, and thus limit the choice to parochial electors only. There were lots of technical objections raised to men being continued on the Register from year to year, on account of break of residence and other reasons; and under the present system it took a man two years to get on to the Register. There might be men of all classes who might be disqualified by the words of the Amendment whom nobody would wish to see shut off the Parish Council. He would suggest they should insert the words "resident in the district." He did not want to shut out men from adjoining parishes and those who would be disqualified from merely technical objections to being placed on the Register for the year.

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

thought if the words "or the adjacent parish only" were added to the Amendment it would meet with the views of both sides. It would then read— Shall be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish or the adjacent parish only. He felt himself that they might very well exclude the most desirable persons for the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Parish Council by shutting out those who resided in the adjoining parish. He knew one gentleman who had hardly any property in the parish in which he resided, but in the adjoining parish he had a considerable number of houses, and would probably be selected as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Parish Council in this latter parish; but if they did not put in the words he had now suggested, this gentleman would be shut out from the Parish Council. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to his suggestion he thought it would meet the case.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the original intention of the Government was to follow the example of the School Board elections, which had worked with perfect satisfaction in all parts of the Kingdom. The Government desired, of course, that the persons resident in the parish and paying the rates of the parish should be those who should represent the parish. In laying down such a rule they had to recognise the fact that their electoral system was a complicated one, and also the fact that there were in many parishes many persons deeply interested in their prosperity, and eminently qualified to promote the well-being of their inhabitants, but who would be disqualified if the qualification were confined simply to the electors. There were lodgers—single men and women—who would be able to render great service to the parishes where they lived. If the limit of qualification were restricted to electors only, all married women would be excluded from having any share in the affairs of the parish—a result which he would deplore. Another class of persons consisted of those who lived over the border, and who might give valuable help in local government. He knew one gentleman who sat on the other side of the House who was in that position, and whose assistance to an adjacent parish would be a great advantage. He was willing to accept the proposal as to the parochial elector, but it was a question whether only the parochial elector should be included. He gathered the general opinion that there should be a combination of qualifications—namely, of electorship and residence. He was not now stating the views of the Government. What he desired was that the Committee should come to a unanimous decision on the subject. He frankly admitted that the original proposal of the Government would be too wide; but, on the other hand, he thought the Amendment would render the qualification too narrow. Perhaps they would meet the difficulty by adopting a qualification to include persons on the Register as parochial electors, or persons who had resided, say, for six months, in the parish, or within two or three miles of the parish. The real point was—What would work best in securing the best electorate? What they should prevent was the "carpet-bagger" being elected. They did not want, in the Parish Council, as wide a limit as in the County Council or municipal system; but he thought if they brought in persons who lived within two or three miles, and adopted the residence qualification as he suggested, it would meet the difficulty. He threw this out for the consideration of the Committee.

* MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

thought the right hon. Gentleman had made a very valuable concession. The principle they ought to stand by was that a person should be resident in the parish or interested in the parish. Whatever rule was adopted there must be some accidental cases where the application would result in hardship. If they took the parish elector as the first qualification they would be on firm ground. He thought the further suggestion an excellent one, and he was prepared to agree if the Amendment provided for 12 months' residence.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman was very considerable. He know a case, a parish, just beyond the border of which lived four farmers, who had a greater interest in the parish in which their houses were not than in the parishes in which they resided. They should have some elasticity in the matter, so that persons living in the adjoining parishes might be taken iu in such circumstances. He had heard it said that the words "adjoining parishes" would be unnecessary, because if a man was an owner or occupier in the parish he would appear on the Register. He much preferred the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) to that of the hon. Member for Preston. As far as possible, the people of each parish should manage their own affairs, and owners, occupiers, and labourers should have their full voice. They did not want persons from outside—men with a little idle time on their hands. They would like the Parish Council to be as representative of the parish as possible. Looking at the qualifications in the matter of county elections, he would venture to suggest to the Committee whether the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Bordesley would not meet all that was required to be done.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

said, if a man had an interest in a parish, though he might have his residence in an adjoining parish, he ought to be in a position enabling him to be elected on the Council. He understood his right hon. Friend to concede that. He thought if the hon. Member for Preston added words implying a residential qualification, they would at all events settle that point. Whether there was anything now to settle was a question to be dealt with afterwards. Mr. Hanbury said he was prepared to so alter his Amendment that the Parish Council should consist of a Chairman and Councillors, who shall be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish only, or from persons who shall have resided therein for the 12 months immediately preceding.

An hon. Member: Six months.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said, the Amendment, as altered, would not embody all the suggestions of the President of the Local Government Board. Either residents of adjacent parishes—[Cries of "No!"]—or within three miles, should be included.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be more convenient to add now the words, as last proposed.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

But we cannot accept the Amendment with the addition, because it still contains the word "only."

SIR W. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he would like to say just a word or two, for the purpose of warning the Committee against any words of extension. He did not wish to add anything to the views which bad been expressed regarding parochial electors; but he would warn the Committee against the use of any such language as "adjacent" or "adjoining." If they used these words they would have persons residing in small towns claiming to be electors in parishes outside those towns. Such terms as these were very ambiguous. There were in many parts of England isolated parts of counties entirely surrounded by another county. They had cases of two parishes eight miles long, and in such cases they would see the use that could me made of these words. On the whole, the Committee had better confine themselves to parochial electors and residents in the parish. Anomalies there would be, whatever rule was adopted; but it would be better, he believed, to avoid the use of "adjacent" or "adjoining," and keep within the limit of the parish itself.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

suggested that the latter part of the Amendment might run, or persons who shall, during the preceding [] months, have resided in, or within three miles of. This would carry out the whole scheme.

THE word "only" struck out of the Amendment.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, they should have some understanding regarding the period of residence. The Amendment prescribed a 12 months' residence. He would prefer six months, and so would a great many others. Then there was the question of the three miles, and at what point that provision should go in.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, in connection with Parliamentary elections the shorter the residence the better; but this was a different thing. Here they wanted a local administration, and there was no use putting on the Council a man who would be here to-day and there to-morrow. He was, therefore, in favour of a 12 mouths' residence qualification.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he hardly thought the difficulty about the word "adjoining" was a practical one. It was most desirable to make eligible many labourers and others who from lack of cottage accommodation were obliged to live outside, although their interests were all within, the parish. The case of School Boards was not analogous, as they were simply appointed to administer a compulsory law, whereas the Parish Council would have to decide whether expense was to be incurred and what work was to be done, or whether any was to be done at all. If there was any doubt about the three-mile limit they would have almost as much difficulty in this matter as if they used the word "adjoining." It would be a great hardship if the labourer, being a competent man, was in any way to suffer because of this. He was inclined to think that the word "adjoining" would meet the difficulty; but if they had three miles measured from the edge of the parish, with some months' residence as qualification, that might settle the question.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a very remarkable one. He took the case of an agricultural labourer who made his living in one parish and resided in another.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

was understood to say he was referring to urban districts.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, the right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that the labourer so situated should have a vote, not only in the parish in which he lived, hut in that in which he worked.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I did not say that he should have a vote in that way.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, the effect of the proposal, at any rate, would be to admit to the control of the Council of a rural parish outsiders who neither resided nor had any ratepaying interest whatever in it.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he did not mean to convey that the labourer in such a case should have a vote in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was that the labourer might live in a parish and have all his interests outside it. He might live in a rural district and he compelled to work in a village.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, the point was that, if the man was a ratepayer in a parish, they provided that he should be a Councillor there. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley would admit to the Council outsiders—persons who had no ratepaying interest in the parish. Having regard to the powers proposed to be conferred upon these Councils—the large expenditure they might have to deal with, and the provisions in other respects—that seemed to him a strange proposal. He hoped the Government would adhere to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appeared to him to be a very wise one. The qualification for the Councillorship should be based on the Parochial Register, with a residential period.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, it would be better to settle one question first—that of the electoral roll and residence—and leave the Committee to deal with the other question again. It would be the safer way to take the Amendment in that form.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to be in favour of 12 months as against six, and that he agreed to the three-mile limit. He (Sir C. Dilke) would not press his objection to the 12 mouths' residence; but he would move to add to the Amendment words carrying into effect the three-miles extension.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it would be better that they should dispose, in the first instance, of the Amendment to the Amendment as already moved

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Preston must withdraw his Amendment before any other alteration can be proposed.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add— Or persons who have, during the 12 months preceding the election, resided in the parish.

* MR. EVERETT

said, he would draw the attention of the Committee to what they would be doing if they adopted this 12 months' provision. They were making ineligible for 18 months all farmers who moved out of one parish into another at Michaelmas. There were a great many parishes in which one farmer occupied nearly the whole of the land. That farmer might have been only six months in the parish when the annual meeting was held, and, according to the Amendment, it would be another 12 months before he would be qualified either to sit on its Council or to vote. Such a person would be a large ratepayer, and should be able to vote as soon as possible after he came into residence.

SIR R. TEMPLE

He would be a ratepayer.

* MR. EVERETT

But he would not be on the Register, and your 12 months' residence condition would exclude him as a resident.

Amendment agreed to.

SIR C. W. DILKE

I move to add at the end of the last Amendment, "or within three miles thereof."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "or within three miles thereof."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)

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

* MR. W. LONG

said, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment. The circumstances were different to those of the County Councils. It was true that every County Council elector resident within 14 miles of the boundary of the county was eligible to be elected if he could prove himself to be a ratepayer in the county. But in this case they had laid it down that the Parish Councillor should be an inhabitant of the parish, and they had added to that that he should have a residence in the parish. The words now proposed were inconsistent with the principle he understood the Committee to have laid down, that the Council should consist of residents in the parish, or persons immediately interested in the affairs of the parish. Their fundamental principle was residence or participation in the affairs of the parish. By departing from that, and adopting the municipal system, they would make it possible for a Council to be composed of men who had no interest in parochial matters. And a three-mile limit would offer a temptation to outsiders to get elected and override the views of the villagers. It might be said that the School Board system had worked well, but that was because outsiders had not largely taken advantage of their power. If they were to have good parochial administration, they must trust to those who lived in the parish, and who would be daily observers of what was going on. It was desirable that these parish affairs should be conducted economically, and he was sure no one was more strongly of that opinion than the right horn Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Well, if they accepted this provision establishing a three-mile limit, they would add enormously to the cost of contested elections. People would come to offer themselves as candidates from outside, knowing that even if they were unsuccessful the cost would not fall upon themselves.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he must confess he did not agree with the hon. Member opposite, who seemed to attach too much importance to the Amendment. And he could not agree with the unfavourable view the hon. Member took of the probable result of the Amendment if adopted. There was no principle in what they had hitherto done in connection with the clause. They had adopted certain alternative qualifications, and had not come to the end of the alternatives they might be inclined to adopt. They had established the fact that to be a parochial elector was a qualification, and also that to be a parochial resident was a qualification, and now they were considering whether it was a qualification to be a close neighbour. He would venture to put before hon. Gentlemen opposite two or three cases in which it seemed to him eminently desirable that a neighbour should be qualified to be elected a Councillor in a parish, if the parishioners desired to make him one. They were dealing not with the question whether a neighbour should be a voter, but with the question whether he should be capable of being elected by the voters. Labourers had often to live just outside the boundary of the parish in which they worked and in whose affairs they were primarily interested, and surely it was desirable that such men should be eligible if the parishioners desired to put them on the Council. Then, there might be cases in which a farmer had his farm in one parish and his residence in another. In such cases, why should not the farmer be eligible to be elected to the Council of the parish in which his farm was situated.

An hon. MEMBER: He would be. He would be an elector in both parishes.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

said, that was so. He was afraid the illustration he intended was not a sound one. But the personal knowledge of hon. Members would supply illustrations of persons living close to a parish and taking a neighbourly interest in its affairs, although they themselves were not electors in the parish. It must be remembered that they were not forcing these persons on the parochial electors, but merely giving the electors the right to choose them if they thought fit. The matter was not of the largest importance, but he thought the proposal one that should be accepted.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, it was for those who were in favour of the Amendment to give the instances the right hon. Gentleman referred to. None occurred to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House where the Amendment would be of advantage or where the disadvantages would not outweigh the advantages. True, there might be cases where labourers took great interest in parishes, but were compelled to live elsewhere. But they would have the right to vote in the parishes in which they lived. In order to meet the contingent, academical cases that the right hon. Gentleman opposite could not define, they were asked to establish a new principle, and say that people who had no interest in the parish but lived a distance from it could be brought in by a political majority in order, it might be, to override the best interests of the place.

* SIR. C. W. DILKE

said, the cases referred to were by no means hypothetical. In the County of Gloucester, as the Chairman of the County Council (Sir J. Dorington) who was sitting opposite knew, there was a hamlet situated in four parishes, a portion of the inhabitants of which had appealed to the County Council to create a new parish. The parishes covered enormous areas and contained villages that were miles away from the hamlet of which he spoke. It was clear that some of the inhabitants of the hamlet might be mixed up with the affairs of the other villages, and it would be a hardship to them to refuse the proposed Amendment. Another case he would mention was that of the parish of Newland, a large part of which had been taken away under the Divided Parishes Act. The inhabitants of the part which had been taken away were still interested in the charities of the old parish, and by refusing the Amendment the Committee would refuse those people the right to be elected on the Council of the old parish and, consequently, the right of a voice in the management of the charities.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that no doubt there were many similar cases to that mentioned by the right hon. Baronet throughout the length and breadth of the country. For the last four or five days gentlemen opposite had been upholding the doctrine of trusting the agricultural labourers with parish meetings. Well, could they not trust them to elect whom they thought proper? If the electors saw a man just across their border who might be most competent, suitable, and qualified to be on the Parish Council, hon. Gentlemen opposite would say to them—"You shall not be at liberty to choose that man." There was no such restriction in the case of County Councils or Municipal Councils. [Cries of "Yes!"] No; they had a limit of 15 miles in the case of the County Council.

An hon. Member: He must be an elector.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the man must be rated in the district, but the area was different altogether. The original proposal of the Government was to give the electors a full and fair choice, and he did not think it was necessary to restrict their choice. The Amendment would secure that men residing in the neighbourhood should be elected, and, under the circumstances, the Government were willing to accept the proposal.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

thought that the area proposed in the Amendment was very large. He objected to giving facilities for the operations of "carpet baggers"—to enabling townsmen to be elected solely for their own purposes. People would put up as candidates to cultivate the parishioners in their own interest, and not in the interest of the parish. He wished to avoid the domination of country parishes by urban districts.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, there appeared to be an idea that extending the area throe miles would bring in the agricultural labourer, but the argument was the other way. It would tend to keep him out, and the man who would be let in would be the one living in a town three miles from the parish who owned a trap and could drive backwards and forwards to the village.

SIR J. DORINGTON

said, it was true the cases referred to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) were hard cases, but they could not legislate exactly for hard cases. The question for them to consider was what was the most consistent and the best course to take; and he was bound to say he considered that the person who sat on the Parish Council should either be a resident in the parish or an elector. They should trust to time to cure such difficulties as the right hon. Baronet had alluded to. It was clear that when a parish was divided, the inhabitants in each division would not have the same voice in the management of the whole parish that they had before. The fear on the Opposition side of the House was that if the Amendment were accepted a parish might be swept by an urban population. That they wished to avoid.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that before the Committee went to a Division he wished to recall to its recollection the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had expressed his preference for a 12 months' residential qualification over a six months' qualification. Now, forsooth, it was not to be a question of residence at all, but everyone who resided within three miles of the parish was to be allowed to come in.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No; the Amendment will read— Persons who have, during the 12 months preceding the election, resided in the parish or within three miles thereof.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid it down in the clearest language that what was desired was a long residence in the parish. Surely the present Amendment was going in the teeth of that.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, that if the Amendment were agreed to fully, half the rural parishes of the country would be dominated by urban populations. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 115.—(Division List, No. 332.)

Question, That the words 'be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish or persons who have, during the 12 months preceding the election, resided in the parish, or within three miles thereof, and shall' be there inserted, put, and agreed to.

MR. J. G. LAWSON

said, he wished to move to add to the end of the Amendment just inserted the words— But no person shall be qualified to be elected to or to be a member of more than one Parish Council, unless he is a parochial elector in each of the said parishes. If this Amendment had been before the Committee half an hour ago it would have been saved a great deal of discussion. The effect of allowing people who were not closely connected with a parish to sit on a Parish Council would be that in the scattered rural districts surrounding small towns men from these towns would get themselves elected on a number of Councils, and go round spreading mischief in every direction.

Amendment proposed, To add at the end of the last Amendment the words, "But no person shall be qualified to be elected to or to be a member of more than one Parish Council, unless he is a parochial elector in each of the said parishes."—(Mr. J. G. Lawson.)

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

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

was understood to say that he could not see the necessity for all these restrictions. The electors in the parishes would be men of common sense, and if people went amongst them for the purpose of being elected to the councils in order to do mischief there, why should not the parishioners elect them if they chose?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government could not assent to the Amendment. They believed the inhabitants of the parishes were people of common sense, and that these cumbrous safeguards were unnecessary in their interests

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not given the Amendment the attention it deserved. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had made an appeal to the Committee in connection with a peculiar instance of hardship, in the case of a man living on four cross roads in various parishes, but he (Mr. Brodrick) did not think the right hon. Baronet intended, and he was sure the Committee did not intend, to set up a body of professional Parish Councillors who would go out from a town situated in the midst of a number of parishes and get themselves elected for those parishes.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would call attention to the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the full effect of a hastily drawn Amendment which does not appear on the Paper. This Amendment should come on as a proviso at the end of the sub-section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he wished to move to omit "five" in order to insert "six." His object was to provide, by later Amendment, that one-third of the Parish Council should retire every year instead of the whole of the members, as proposed in the Bill. The proposal of the Bill would destroy continuity of policy on the Councils, and lead to confusion. It might be said that the Guardians had to go out every year, but they had a different class of work to perform. A Parish Council might decide to adopt one of the adoptive Acts or to undertake any other business, but before they had proceeded far in what they had taken in hand, or, at all events, before they had completed it, the members might go out in a body. Those who were elected might be out of sympathy with the policy of their predecessors, and so continual changes of policy might occur. The members of District Councils under the Bill had three years in Office, and a third of them went out every year. It would be better, in the interests of uniformity and in the interests of business, if the same plan were adopted in regard to Parish Councils. He feared that one result of the plan adopted in the Bill would be that in the case of a large parish where a Council could afford to have paid officials the whole business would be left in the hands of those officials instead of in those, of the Councillors themselves. If a third of the Councillors went out every year an indication would be obtained at least once a year of public opinion with regard to the policy the Parish Council should adopt.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 26, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "six."—(Mr. J. Cullings.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My right hon. Friend has correctly stated that this is the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which is to alter the mode of election which the Bill proposes. Our proposal is that there should be an annual election of the whole of the members of a Parish Council, and that they should all go out of Office together. My right hon. Friend proposes that we should follow the example of the Municipal Corporations and the District Councils, and provide that one-third of the members should go out every year. I am in this unfortunate position, that I have expressed views in favour of the principle advocated by my right hon. Friend, having endeavoured in vain to convince the House that they should adopt it when County Councils were established. I then thought, and I still think, that it would have been better if one-third of the members of the County Councils had gone out every year. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] I am not saying that I was right five years ago; it may have been my folly. I hold that opinion still, however. I also think that it would be desirable, if public opinion were able to be brought more frequently to bear on School Boards than is the case at present. That, however, is ancient history. Parliament has decided that County Councils should go out as a whole every three years, and that School Boards should do the same. I think that in view of the smallness of the constituency a Parish Council will possess, it would not, on the whole, be the best plan to divide it into three groups and to have an election of one-third of the members every year. The class of electors who will have votes for Parish Councils is not so familiar with the system advocated by my right hon. Friend as with that of annual elections, and I think it would appear to the electors that three years would be a very long period to wait before having the opportunity of changing the whole of their representatives. So far as continuity is concerned, I think that the closer the touch between the parish meeting and the Parish Council in these matters the better. Though I frankly confess that I have very strong leanings in the direction of the Amendment, I think it will be wiser to adhere to the proposals of the Bill than to have an annual meeting.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

thought that this was a case in which the right hon. Gentleman might be invited to act upon his original judgment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have been a little led astray in his observations respecting the County Council precedent, as be did not appear to recollect that those bodies were elected by single-membered constituencies. It was impossible to apply that system to the case of the Parish Councils. The constituencies that would be created under this Bill were more on all-fours with those created under the Municipal Corporations Act. In the interests of continuity in the administration of parish affairs the right hon. Gentleman's pesonal judgment was to be preferred to that of those whose opinions had outweighed his for the moment. There was no risk under the system proposed in the Amend- ment of having a Board swept away in its entirety, and of having an entirely new one put in its place. It might sometimes happen that even the most conscientious and enlightened Local Authority might incur some phenomenal unpopularity by doing that which it regarded as its duty, and it was certainly desirable that some continuity should be secured.

* MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would give a certain discretion to the County Council as to the fixing of the number of Councillors who were to be elected in each parish?

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

was of opinion that it would be well to adopt a system lying midway between the two now before the Committee, and to have the whole of the members of the Parish Council elected every two years. Experience both in this and in other countries indicated that the more elections were multiplied the less interest people took in them. The smaller the parish also the greater the burden that would be placed upon it by repeated elections.

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

took the view that the parish meeting ought to have the power of kicking out the Parish Council every year if it desired to do so.

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

said, he shuddered at the expense of carrying out this Bill. If there was to be in every parish, as there would be in every fighting parish, if he might use the term, an election every year, the expense would be enormous even if the cost were placed on the lowest scale. The last contested County Council election in Durham cost £2,600. He trusted that the Committee would agree to have the Parish Councils elected every three years instead of every year. The expense of having a third of the members elected every year would be much the same as that of having the whole elected every year.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, the Committee seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the custom had long existed in parishes of electing certain officers once a year. The misfortune hitherto had been that the elections which took place at the annual Easter Vestries did not declare the popular voice. Whilst he saw very grave reasons for making considerable changes in the government of the parish, he saw no reason for changing that ancient and immemorial custom by which the parishes had been in the habit of electing certain persons every year.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

was very glad to support the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in his view of ancient and immemorial custom. He thought that one good reason for the proposal of the Government was that the people in the parishes had been accustomed to elect their officers every year. He did not believe that the expenses would be reduced if the elections were to take place every three years. If a man were elected for one year only he would be bound to keep in touch with his constituents, and in all probability there would be no contest at the end of the year; but if he were elected for three years there would be certain to be a contest at the end of the period. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) had not only the faults of the Amendment which proposed an election every three years, but, as a third of the members would under it have to go out every year, it would have the disadvantageous result of an election every year.

* MR. H. LAWSON (Gloucester, Cirencester)

said, there was another reason, which was quite as good as the economical one, for rejecting the Amendment, and that was the educative reason. Hon. Gentlemen had talked about the necessity of having parish meetings in order to give the people every opportunity of learning how their own local government was conducted. Certainly they would not have much opportunity, or much interest, in doing so unless they had an election every year.

* MR. TAYLOR (Norfolk, S.)

said, he sincerely hoped the Government would be able to take some steps towards reducing the number of the elections. An uncontested election for a School Board cost £11; there were 700 parishes in Norfolk, and if there were an uncontested election every year it would mean an expense of at least £7,000, whilst what a contested election would cost he did not know. He hoped an arrangement would be made under which all these elections would take place in the same day. This might be a means of diminishing the expense, which was really anticipated with aversion and dread by all the county ratepayers.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that as his proposal did not appear to be received with general favour, he would ask leave to withdraw it. At the same time, he still believed it was a correct proposition.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the Amendment he next had to propose was one he put forward in the interests of local administration. Many hon. Members who were interested in this subject felt that the great danger in the future would be the absence of connecting links between the different Local Bodies.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

We do not want ex officio connecting links.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE,

continuing, said, his Amendment did not propose ex officio connecting links, as usually the term was understood. It was intended to deal with the case of a person who had already undergone popular election in a larger and more important constituency, and to ensure that a person who had been elected a District Councillor should have of right a seat on the Parish Council for his own parish. Under the old system many people of experience served on several public bodies, to the benefit and more harmonious co-operation of them all. No doubt hon. Members near him would object to the mode in which it was proposed to confer this right on District Councillors, but, in the interests of local administration, it was desirable in the case of Parish Councils to obtain the services of all the available local ability, and if members of the County and District Councils were able to sit in the Parish Council, they would be able to remove misunderstandings between the larger and smaller Public Bodies, and to smooth away those jealousies which the experience of the past few years had shown were likely to arise between the County Councils on the one hand and the smaller boards on the other. Under the new system created by this Bill, there would be much greater danger of friction and misunderstanding unless something was done to prevent it. The difficulty in many parishes would be to get sufficient local men for the work to be done. His Amendment might be too widely framed, but he would willingly withdraw it if the Government would promise favourable consideration to the simpler plan to be proposed with the same object by the hon. Member for Leominster. He was confident that, if some such plan were adopted, it would make the administrative machine work more smoothly, and prevent misunderstandings arising between the different bodies.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 26, at end, insert "every member of the County Council of the administrative county, and every member of the District Council of the rural district within which the parish is situate, shall, if he resides within or is a parochial elector of the parish and is not an elected Parish Councillor, be by virtue of his office an additional Parish Councillor."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite appreciate the object of my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment, but I am bound to say that the means employed to give effect to it are not good. Though I should like to have a much stronger connecting link than at present between County Councils and District Councils, I cannot accept the Amendment with reference to Parish Councils. The hon. Member proposes that every member of the County Council is to be an ex officio member of the Parish Council in which he may be a parochial elector. The meaning of this is that a large owner of property who is an Alderman will be an ex officio Parish Councillor of every parish in which he owns any land. That is not a proposition which I think the House can accept; nor would it be desirable on other grounds. If a gentleman who is already on the County Council has the position and the time to be a member of the Parish Council, and possesses the confidence of the inhabitants, he is certain to be elected; but there would be a great difficulty in making him an ex officio member. There are now in England about 4,000 County Councillors, and I hope the result of this Bill will be that we shall have 9,000 or 10,000 Parish Councils. But under the proposal of the hon. Member there will be many Parish Councils containing more than one ex officio Councillor, while a number of other Parish Councils will have none at all. My hon. Friend further proposes that every member of a District Council in a rural district shall also be an ex officio member. One of the duties which we have imposed on Parish Councils, in response to the general feeling in the rural district, is that they are to have the power to complain of District Councils to the County Council. I know that there has been, and there is, a very great neglect of sanitary duties in the rural sanitary districts of the country. I know from Medical Reports cases where the Rural Sanitary Authority will not do, its duty, and where the villages are suffering in water supply, drainage, and in all the sanitary conditions of life because the Rural Sanitary Authority decline to act. The Bill provides that Parish Councils shall have the power of appealing to the County Councils; and if they have the power, I believe they will in time rectify this state of things. But it would be most undesirable to have ex officio representatives outvoting the elected representatives of the parish in such a case. We must adhere to the principle that those shall sit on the Parish Council—and only those—who possess the confidence of the electors.

MR. RANKIN (Leominster)

said, he ventured to point out to the President of the Local Government Board that District Councillors would be elected by the parish electors, that they would have the interests of the parish at heart, and would probably represent the parish. His belief, therefore, was that they would act rather in the opposite direction to that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. It was eminently desirable that the Parish and District Councils should know each other's wishes, especially in regard to sanitary work, and that there should be continuity of policy. Therefore, although the Amendment went in the direction of overloading the Parish Councils, he thought that the idea was a good one, and he would support it if it were pressed to a Division. He hoped, however, the Government would see its was to adopt some kind of connecting link between the County, District, and Parish Councils.

MR. RATHBONE

said, he did not quite agree with the arguments of the President of the Local Government Board. He desired to point out that the object aimed at by the hon. Member might be better secured by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster, which was much more limited in its scope, as it did not apply to County Councillors, and would prevent any possibility of the Parish Councillors being outvoted. As a practical measure connecting the Parish Councils with the District Councils, this would be a most valuable Amendment. It would make the Parish and District Councils more united, and so far from detracting from the power of the Parish Councils would give them additional influence on the District Councils. He hoped, however, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had hardly done justice to the practical value of this proposal. It was a mistake to suppose that the County and District Councillors would be opposed to the elective element on the Parish Councils. They would, on the contrary, be the representatives of the smaller body on the larger bodies; and if hon. Members wanted to see the County Authorities harmoniously work together, this end could not be better achieved than by making County and District Councillors members of the Parish Councils.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would resist the Amendment, or anything of the same nature, because it would not be to the advantage of the Parish Council to have the Olympians descending upon it whenever they chose. If there was to be any ex officio interference it should be in an opposite direction, and the Parish Councillor should have a right to sit on the District Council. They ought not to give the County or District Councillor a right to dictate to the Parish Council.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said, he could quite understand that that part of the Amendment which referred to County Councillors was not acceptable, but the case was somewhat different as regarded the District Councillors. It was worthy of consideration whether some means could not be devised whereby District and Parish Councils could be brought closer together in certain matters, as, for instance, sanitary questions.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had admitted that the object aimed at by the Amendment was a desirable one. Why, then, did he not devise some means of attaining it? In future, if a public-spirited, hard-working man wished to serve the interests of his parish or Union he would have to go through the intolerable burden of three separate elections, and that would prove a serious bar to the exercise of public spirit. However, after what had been said, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after line 26, to insert the words "(2) No person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being a member of a Parish Council."—(Mr. H H. Fowler.)

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

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he had put down on the Paper as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment (page 2, after line 26), line 2, after "member," insert "or chairman." He should like to know from the President of the Local Government Board whether it was necessary to insert this Amendment in order to make it clear that women were eligible for election as Chairman of a Parish Council?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he bad been advised that his right hon. Friend's proposed Amendment was not necessary in order to effect that purpose, as women would be eligible for election to the chair of a Parish Council if his own Amendment were carried.

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said, that it was proposed by this Amendment to make married women living with their husbands within three miles of the parish eligible for service on the Parish Council. That meant that a married man and his wife would be qualified to sit together on a Parish Council. He thought that was carrying the thing much further than the Committee contemplated, when they assented to the proposal of the Government to allow married women who were duly qualified to vote on the Parish Council elections. Now, women would even be able to pre- side if elected to the chair. What would be the duty of a married woman who should be elected on a Council together with her husband? She, of course, would have to obey and act as her husband wished. [Laughter.] He was not joking. Was the wife to get up and say to the husband, "I set you at defiance; I take a different view on this question, and I intend to vote differently?" Opposition by the wife to her husband in the Council would lead to scandalous scenes. Let them imagine the position of a woman who, being in the chair, might have to rule her husband out of order. If she directed him to sit down he could refuse to do so, but if he should tell her to sit down she was be und to obey. Then a man would not only be able to bring his wife on a Parish Council, but all his daughters also. That would enable rich and powerful men to exercise exceptional influence on the Council. If this Amendment were agreed to, an unanswerable argument would be supplied to those who wanted all the political power enjoyed by men given to women. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would put married women side by side with their husbands on the same Boards, thus giving a paramount power to married couples. Against a proposal of this kind he emphatically protested.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

The argument of the right hon. and learned Member reminds me of the argument formerly used by the opponents of the Bill to allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The opponents of that measure at one time argued as if it would compel every widower to marry his deceased wife's sister. In the same way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken on the assumption that, if the Amendment under consideration were carried, it would be compulsory on every man to get his wife elected on the Parish Council. For my part, I lam content to trust the electors, as we have already trusted them in the matter of the School Boards, to exercise a wise choice. I may remind the Committee that some of the best administrators of School Boards, and some of the best Guardians now in England are married ladies. Everyone who knows anything of the administration of the Poor Law must know what a great advantage it would be to have ladies—and especially married ladies— members of Boards of Guardians. At the present moment there is a doubt whether married women are qualified to be Guardians, but, like my predecessors in the Local Government board, I have always declined to express any opinion on that point. I am always delighted when married women are elected as Guardians, and I believe I have myself nominated married ladies to these positions. The proposal of the Government is that for Parish Councils there shall be no disqualification by sex or marriage; and that if the parochial electors should wish to have a young lady or an old lady, a single lady or a married lady, on their Council, they should have the right to place her in that position. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about a married woman calling her husband to order, or voting according to her husband's behests, is amusing persiflage. But that is not the spirit in which to approach this great measure of reform. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in opposing this plan for permitting married women to take a share in Parish Council work is very much behind the times.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

said that he had voted with the hon. Member for Crewe the other day to put married women in the same position as single women, so far as the election of Parish Councils was concerned; and the Committee had adopted that view. But he was not in favour of the proposal to permit married, or even single, women to act as Chairmen of any Board. His experience of women made him doubt whether they would be impartial in the chair. There was in women a want of the logical faculty, or the even faculty, which incapacitated them from distributing fair justice between all parties concerned. He therefore thought that women would not make good Chairmen of these bodies, and he would like to see a clause inserted in the Bill specifically stating that no woman should be elected Chairman of a Parish Council. He had heard that not long ago at a meeting of women one of their number quoted Sir J. Lubbock as a financial authority, but she was immediately rebuked by the lady in the chair, who said that they were not going to be interfered with by men. In fact, a woman would be anything but impartial in the chair. The position of ladies on Boards of Guardians was quite different. He had had the honour of being a member of a Board, of which a lady was a very useful and valuable member. But she was not Chairman, and he did not think anyone would wish to put her into the chair. He believed that women would have in some districts influence which would enable them to get elected as Chairmen, and he therefore intended to propose an Amendment declaring women to be ineligible for the position.

SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he would agree that, as a general rule, it was not desirable that ladies should preside over these Boards. But there might be cases in which the contrary would be very wise, and he thought the proper course was to leave those elected to a Council to decide whether or not it was necessary in particular cases to have a woman to preside. The hon. Baronet who had last spoken had said that women would be partial. It should be borne in mind that they had also heard of men being partial before now. Did not a Chief Magistrate once say that during his year of office he would strive neither to be partial nor impartial? The chief argument against the proposal was that there was some sort of idea that it would lead to the creation of fagot votes. But it was not done as a general rule, under the present joint occupation, which enabled it to be done in favour of sons, because, first, as a general rule people would not take the trouble of going through such a process; and, secondly, because it would not be right, and therefore people would not do it generally.

* MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be passed in this off-hand manner. This Bill was an experiment, and would it be wise, he asked, to complicate the experiment by agreeing to this Amendment? Those who relied on the good work done by women on School Boards and Boards of Guardians overlooked the fact that the duties performed by those bodies were essentially different from the duties which Parish Councils would discharge. Here the proposal was that women should be made eligible to occupy the position of administrators, and to that he objected. If they allowed women to become members of these Elected be dies they would inevitably be asked to grant women still greater electoral privileges.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the Committee were in the strange position of being asked to say that women should be capable of being elected on Parish Councils before it had been decided whether or not women should be electors. That seemed to him to be putting the cart before the horse. He objected strongly to proposals to drag ladies into public life. They had been reproached with indulging in persiflage in discussing this subject. But it was impossible to do it in any other way, because there were moral and physical reasons why women were unfitted to become members of these Boards, which the Committee could not properly enter into very fully, as there were strangers present. As yet no woman had been qualified to take an active prominent part in public life.

MR. W. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

The Queen.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he held that it was altogether inadvisable to introduce women into public life; but if it was to be done, it should be done as the assertion of a great principle on sufficient grounds, and not incidentally and episodically, as by the present Amendment.

MR. H. PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., S.)

said, that one of the States of the American Union had established women's suffrage, and recognised the political and legal equality of the sexes. Having lived in that State for some years, he had had some experience of the question. One thing he noticed was that the fears which were expressed as to women unduly pushing themselves into public or official life were unfounded. For some reason, which he as a bachelor could not explain, it was found that as a rule women did not vote for female candidates, and it was a curious compensation that women's suffrage seemed to keep women out of public life. He admitted that women in public life sometimes displayed qualities which he might describe as "sweet unreasonableness," but he had never known a case in which it gave rise to any domestic disturbance. He had heard it stated that political differences were the only domestic trouble that no State of the Union had ever allowed to be good ground for divorce. In the State of Wyoming, to which he referred, he was well acquainted with a female Justice of the Peace, who discharged her duties and sometimes her revolver, when necessary, with considerable effect. He knew of only one case in which it was generally agreed that woman had rather outstepped her proper sphere, and that was when she was appointed upon juries. The practice was discontinued, it was said, on the complaint of a man who said he had been left at home to mind the baby while his wife was locked up all night with 11 good men and true. However, when confined to their proper sphere, especially when acting on School Boards, there could be no question about it that women were less corrupt and far more attentive to their duties than the ordinary frontier male officer. He therefore saw no objection to the Amendment. He believed that women were only likely to get into public life to such an extent, and at such times, as their services and qualifications merited.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that his experience was that the admission of women to Public Bodies in the American States was confined to Wyoming, to which the hon. Member for South Dublin had referred. It was proposed by this Amendment that every woman, rich or poor, young or old, living within three miles of a parish should be eligible for election on the Council of that parish simply and solely because she was a woman, for that was the only qualification. Life would, indeed, be sad and dreary without women, but the Committee was asked to take too serious a step in making women eligible for these offices.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he thought the Committee were entering on a very important change with a somewhat light heart. He feared they were throwing down the wall that excluded women from office, and were taking the first step towards enabling women to take part in all elections and in all offices. But if they carefully guarded themselves against being supposed to be desirous of going any further, he thought that in this exceptional case the concession might be made. He confessed that he looked with more fear on the suggestion that women might be elected to act as Chairmen of the Parish Councils; but, on the whole, he was inclined to leave the matter to the good sense of the parishes themselves. Therefore he, for his part, was not disposed to object to this Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

rose, when—

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

*MR. TOMLINSON moved the following Amendment:— In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three years. The term of office for a Parish Councillor as the Bill stood was one year, and the object of the Amendment was to change this and make it three years. He said it seemed as if the framers of the Bill had fixed their eyes on the cases of the small parishes where the parish work was in a small area; but this provision might also apply to large parishes, where the concerns might not be simply agricultural pursuits, but other matters. No doubt there were in all parts of the country people who lived upon elections, and who were never happy unless an election was going on. But there were many—and they would not be the least useful members of these Local Bodies— who looked upon elections as, at the best, a necessary evil, and a thing of which they might easily have too much. In the case of a village where there was a strong difference of opinion as to the policy to be pursued on some important matter the feeling would run high, and each year, as the election time came round, the parish would be plunged into the turmoil of a fresh election, and the angry feelings which an election gave rise to would hardly have subsided before another election would come on. This would have the effect of seriously interfering with business engagements. It was an evil at the present time in many Municipalities that business had to be interrupted in order that those who took an interest in making their Municipalities as perfect as possible should devote their attention to the elections. But in the case of the Parish Councils there was not to be only a retirement of part of the members, but the whole body was to be re-constituted every year. What would be the result of such a system where there was a distinct policy in course of operation which had not terminated in the year—some sanitary scheme or water scheme—and there was a strong difference of opinion about it? They would have a body formed for one year; then came a contested election, and probably the whole body of the Council would be turned out and a fresh body take its place, with different ideas of what ought to be done, and with different views for carrying out their object. Could that have any other result than to cause additional expense, and possibly disaster, to the objects intended to be carried out? Then there was the question of the expense of continual elections. Where feeling ran high there would be contests, and there would be the necessary cost of the poll, which would have to come out of the rates, and the additional expense would be a serious matter in the case of the poor parishes. Why should an election be gone through every year in every parish? It was possible to provide some means by which, if a parish were dissatisfied with their Council, they could bring about an election. There could, for instance, be a referendum to a parish meeting. A parish meeting could be summoned which could have power given to it to call the electors together and require a new election. It was casting an unnecessary amount of trouble and expense on these parishes to require the election of a fresh body in each year, and on this ground he begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three years."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the effect of the Amendment was to make the term of office for Parish Councillors three years instead of one. He had no doubt that technically the hon. Member was in Order in moving the Amendment, but he would ask whether the House did not practically unanimously resolve—no Division being taken or challenged— that they would not interfere with the scheme of the Bill—namely, that there should be an annual election to the Parish Council, in order that the members should be in touch with the parish meeting, and the constituents should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the conduct of the Council annually? He could not accent this Amendment. If he had had any desire to proceed in this direction he should have accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bordesley, which would have enabled public opinion to be brought to bear—not in a satisfactory mode — once in every year. He agreed with the remark of the hon. Gentleman's colleague (Mr. Hanbury) that that Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bordesley would have rendered an election absolutely certain every year. When the Parish Councils got to work and understood its business, its members would possess the confidence of the electors, and he did not think there would be any such constant repetition of elections as the hon. Member seemed to anticipate.

MR. WHARTON

wished to state one or two reasons why he thought this proposition was a most desirable one to accept. To begin with, the expenses of elections might be considerably lessened if they were all held on the same day. County Council elections took place once every three years, and District and Parish Council elections might also be held once in three years, and they could then have them all on the same day, which would result in considerably lessening the expenses. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said he did not fear that there would be any considerable amount of expenses incurred by this Bill. He hoped and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make good that contention before the discussions concluded. For these elections they must have the ordinary electoral machinery of the ballot—which was a costly machinery—and the expenses which were necessarily attendant on elections would be considerable. He believed if the ratepayers were consulted they would much rather have the election once in three years than every year. Again, they wanted to get the best men they could, who would give up their time for the sake of their parish and district. He believed they would get such men if they only had the prospect of a contest once in three years rather than if they had to subject themselves to the trouble, harass, and annoyance of a contested election every year. More than that, if they agreed to make the period three years they would get men of experience in these matters. How much would a man learn in regard to parish matters if they only allowed him 12 months' experience of them? His right hon. Friend said they would not have a frequent occurrence of these elections. He remembered Mr. Ritchie saying the same thing in regard to the County Councils, but he had experienced the very converse. In his own northern county the election for the County Council had been made a political election instead of an election for the good of the county. The result had been that the county had been put to great expense, and some of the best men in the whole county put oft' the Council. He believed that such a state of affairs might prevail in these elections as well as in the County Councils. If the Government would accept the Amendment, it would, he was sure, be attended with good results, for they would get men of experience well trained in their work, who would subject themselves to an election once in three years, but who would not subject themselves to the harass and worry of an annual election, whilst, at the same time, the expenses would be considerably diminished.

MR. CHANNING

did not agree with the contention of the hon. Member who had last spoken as to annual elections leading to the best men not taking their share in parochial work. He would like to point out to his right hon. Friend one consideration. In the School Boards the term of service was three years, which gave a continuity to the policy, and in the same way there might be a continuity of policy given by some such Amendment as this to the Parish Council, so that there might be power of carrying out a definite policy which might he prejudiced under the annual elections. A night or two ago his right hon. Friend made a concession to the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire in reference to the extinction of Parish Councils under the 200 limit of population by the parish meeting. The question he now wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether, in drawing the pro- posal to meet the concession he had made to the hon. Member for Somersetshire, he would so safeguard the interests of these small Parish Councils as to give them a guarantee that they would have a fair chance of carrying out their policy, on whatever parish question they might have taken up, without being driven out of their position by this hasty vote of the parish meeting? He hoped they should have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the annual elections would not be complicated by some further weakening of the continuity of the policy of the Parish Councils in these very small parishes.

* MR. W. LONG

expressed the hope that the President of the Local Government Board would give this matter further consideration. He would point out that the position of things had been altered by the last Amendment they had added to the Bill. He believed that in the greater number of cases the parochial electors would be thoroughly well able to take care of their own interests, and he was confident, if the President of the Local Government Board had seen his way to confine the choice of members of these Councils to those who were either parochial electors or resident in the parish, there would be very little difficulty. But the position had immensely altered, and that was not the question now. The hon. Member for Preston, in moving his Amendment, based his contention very largely and properly upon the question of expense. He and the hon. Member for Ripon had dwelt on the desirability that there should be as little as possible in the shape of extravagance in reference to local elections. He was satisfied that the experience of the future would prove the truth of the views they held on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that the admission which the House had made of strangers into parochial elections would very seriously affect the number of elections they would have to hold. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said no, but the experience of all those who had lived in a particular class of rural parishes did not, he believed, vary, no matter in what qearter of the House hon. Members might sit. The President of the Local Government Board had two great difficulties to deal with: He had, first, to apply conditions which must be similar to actually dissimilar communities, as there are two classes of parishes. The Amendment just adopted would multiply the number of contested elections in the villages surrounding the towns. It would be possible to minimise the resulting evils—the expense, for example—by accepting this Amendment to make the elections for three years, and another Amendment to give to the parish meeting the right if they chose to terminate the existence of the Parish Council. By this means they would secure continuity of policy and the better administration that accompanied it. Certain very important duties were provided for by the Bill. It would take the Councils some time to learn their business. They would not undertake any important work if they knew that they might be superseded at the end of the year and a stop put to the work they had initiated by a reversal of policy by their successes. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a case when the policy of a London Board of Guardians was reversed in this way owing to a new election and of the delay that was the result. There were many cases of the sort in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. If they agreed to this the result would be that a Council might be turned out before it had settled down to business. The Council should, and he thought would, become a permanent body; but it was desirable they should provide for a continuity of policy. This was a matter of more importance than appeared at first sight. It was important that they should clothe these authorities with importance and dignity, and they could not do anything more mischievous than to have repeated elections. He lived within three miles of a very large town, with parishes all round, and he thought the class to which he belonged, the squires, though they were often represented as tyrants, would acquire from the Amendment adopted an increase of influence which would allow some of them to stand for half-a-dozen places. It would, however, have the disadvantage of throwing open the elections to men who had no locus standi, whose candidature would cost them nothing, and who would not suffer in any way if they were defeated. It was, therefore, advisable to limit the number of contested elections and the money that would be wasted upon them. By this means they would be laying the foundation for something better in the future. It was desirable that real power should he given in the case of the villages and towns concerned, and that they could do by adopting the suggestion which he laid before the Government.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Gentleman had larger experience in these matters than he had; but he had some experience, and he had arrived at conclusions the reverse of those just expressed, both as to continuity of policy and the frequency of contested elections, and the cost of the work that would be undertaken by Parish Councils. If he had a fear, it was that they would err on the side of excessive economy rather than they would do too much.

MR. W. LONG

said, he was not talking of that. What was to be done with regard to the waste of money on contested elections?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the expenses of the elections would be smaller than the hon. Gentleman expected. Under the County Council supervision they would be very trivial, and the machinery would be altogether different from that used in larger elections. There would not be an expensive staff of lawyers, and the expenses of the returning officer ought not to be more than a few shillings. There were two principles—vital principles— from which the Government could not depart. One was that they were giving to the electors of a certain area representative institutions, and they must give them fully, freely, and frankly, without attempting any restrictions which they did not apply elsewhere. They could not subject a representative body to the control of the electorate to be exercised even during that year of office which the hon. Gentleman said would be too short to carry out a specific policy. No difficulty was found in working Boards of Guardians and Rural Sanitary Authorities, which were elected annually. There was marvellous continuity in the re-election of men who had won the confidence of the ratepayers. He knew of cases in Staffordshire and elsewhere where there were very few contests. That applied to the County Councils as well as other bodies. It would be no disadvantage, if the policy of a Parish Council were much discussed, that it should be subject to annual review, and if it were too expensive, that it should be modified or discontinued. He had great respect for the views of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Long), but upon these two points the Government had definitely made up their minds. They must adhere to the principle that the elections should be annual. They could not agree to any Amendment which would cause interference with the freedom of action that these Representative Bodies should have One hon. Member said he had made a concession already in this direction. He had not made any concession. What he had done was in accordance with his original plan. He agreed that any parish containing over 100 should have a Parish Council if it desired, and that the parish meeting should have the same freedom of choice in the creation and removal of the Council. He thought they might now proceed to a decision upon this question. The matter had been discussed with very great fairness. The Government had arrived at the conclusion he had stated, and he thought he might ask the Committee to take a decision at once, or to be content with what had already been done.

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

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the continuity of officers in the County Councils, but he must remember that they were elected upon a single-member principle, and, while the electors might agree in such cases, it could not be assumed that it would be similar in the case of Parish Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken also of the case of the Guardians, who were, he said, elected once a year; but be would point out that, according to a paper issued by the right hon. Gentleman himself within the last few weeks, there were many cases of triennial elections. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had had eleven applications for triennial, instead of annual, elections. He took a poll, and seven out of ten of the places had decided for a triennial election. Seven hundred and eighty-eight rural parishes and 159 parts of rural parishes had triennial elections. Then as to the cost of elections, it was impossible that the expense could be covered by a few shillings. There were the preliminary notices, the constructing of polling stations, the necessity for having officers and clerks. He (Mr. Lawson) could make up a cost of £5 before very long. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said it would only cost a few shillings!

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he referred only to the returning officer's fee, and he considered that any returning officer in a village would he well paid if he got a few shillings.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he was afraid he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but a man who conducted an election and ran the risk he did could not be expected to do it for a few shillings. He did not think they would get many who would sit in a station from 8 in the morning until 8 in the evening for nothing. If there were such men, they were few and far between.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, apart from the question of expense, it was desirable that the Parish Councils should he elected from year to year. He believed the expense would be very small. If he thought the question of expense would be a serious one he would hesitate before saying that; but he was satisfied the expense could not be large. The Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) had referred to the enormous cost of these elections. His hon. Friend was concerned in the work of county government, and he (Mr. Storey) thought he could convince him, and through him the Committee, that there was some way of minimising the expense of elections. There should be no multiplication of elections. They should have all the elections—for the parish, district, and county—on the same day.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Every three years.

MR. STOREY

said, they might differ as to that; but they could hold them as they did the elections in America, three ballot papers being given to each elector—red, white, and blue paper, if they liked—so that the votes might be taken from the same ballot-box and counted at the same time.

MR. WHARTON

said, he had been advocating the holding of all elections on the same day.

MR. STOREY

said, he knew they would not differ with regard to the means of reducing the cost of elections. If they looked at the matter in that light they would see that with the adoption of this principle the expense would be much reduced. They would not in a village of 500 population and 100 electors require everything that would be necessary in a large election.

An hon. MEMBER: Yes; it is in the Bill.

MR. STOREY

said, it was not in the Bill. One hundred votes was a small matter. He would be ready to take the poll in any village with 2,000 people in the County of Durham for a £5 note. If they told him that would be expensive he did not agree at all. It was said that the County Council elections last time in Durham cost £2,200; but then they had a great controversy going on—they had in the Radical County of Durham a Tory Council, and they had to fight for their rights. All that was not likely to occur again. He would remind his hon. Friend who spoke on this subject that there were 37 contested elections on that occasion, and that the total cost, apart from returning officers' fees and such items, was only £197. If the elections were conducted under ordinary conditions, they would not have such expense. They would probably be able to get a returning officer who would sit for nothing. In that way, he thought, they could conduct an election for a £5 note in the smaller villages, and certainly for £10 in the larger villages. He submitted to the Committee that the expense would, therefore, be very small, for the purpose of ascertaining once a year the opinion of the people as to the way in which they wished to be governed and by whom.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he hoped the generous offer of the hon. Member who had just sat down would be largely accepted.

MR. STOREY

I hope so, too.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that when the hon. Member spoke of having red, white, and blue voting papers, and getting the electors to mark them for different electors at one and the same time, he forgot that the elections took place under different sets of conditions.

MR. STOREY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not been in a polling booth so often as he (Mr. Storey) had. When an elector came up to register his vote, he was asked for his name and his number. He gave them; and if he was on the Register he got a voting paper, and if not he did not get a paper.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, his point was that the qualifications for elections under the existing law were different to that which would be required under the present Bill.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the Parochial Register would be the combination of the Parliamentary and Local Government Registers, but a man on the Parliamentary Register only would not be entitled to vote in a County Council election.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, that to come to the practical question, what they wanted was that the Parish Council should be enabled to do all the work it had to do at the least cost to the ratepayers. He was afraid that under this Bill there would be great cost and uncommonly little work done. If there was great multiplication of elections, the result, he feared, would be constant change in the personnel of the Councils, a break in the continuity of policy, and great additional cost. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had referred them to the County Councils and the Boards of Guardians, where they went on very comfortably, and where there was a continuity of policy and the cost very little. But they were not going to have the same system in parochial elections as they had in County Council elections. The parochial electors could not only choose people from among themselves; they would be at liberty to choose outsiders. Agitation was to take place in every rural parish in the country, and he was sure the inevitable result of this would be the enormous multiplication of elections and the enormously-increased costs of these elections to the parish. As to what would be required for the conduct of the election, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the cost would be merely nominal for the returning officer. He hoped it was so, but they must remember that they were going to put on the returning officer great responsibility. He believed it would not be so easy as the Government imagined to conduct these elections in the country parishes on the system proposed, particularly when the elections came to be multiplied. Such a charge would be thrown on the rates that he was afraid the be on about to be conferred on the parishes would not be very highly appreciated.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, that some years ago the experiment of holding various elections on the same day was tried. In Mr. Ritchie's Act of 1888 there was a provision for the County Council and the municipal elections to take place on the same day. However, before the day for holding the elections arrived there was such an outcry on the part of the officers managing the municipal elections that that part of the Act had to be repealed, and a different period had to be fixed for the County Council elections. He was afraid that the still more complicated plan of the present head of the Local Government Board would be found impracticable. As to the cost of individual elections, he (Mr. Hobhouse) wished he could believe with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very small. It ought to be made so, he thought, before the Bill passed, but he could not think that it would be so under the Bill as it stood, having regard to the complicated machinery of the ballot, and the fact that the polling would go on from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night. He did not think they would be able to get presiding officers and clerks to sit for 12 hours in the village polling booths at a nominal remuneration. He had listened carefully to the Debate, and thought that on the whole the balance of advantages was in favour of annual elections. The Parish Councils would not be like Boards of Guardians and Rural Sanitary Authorities. They would not have large schemes to carry out, and it was desirable that they should be in close touch with the parishioners.

MR. STEPHENS

said, the object of the Committee was to avoid expense as much as possible, and he thought that could be best done not by having a long interval between the elections, but a short one. The longer the interval the more likely was it that there would be a contest whether there were real grounds for it or not. Experience of the County Councils showed that owing to the triennial system the views of the ratepayers were, to a large extent, pushed aside, and the issue very absurdly turned upon personal questions, or, more absurdly still, on political matters. County Council and municipal elections were scandalously changing their basis, and becoming purely political. That, he thought, was much to be regretted. If the interval were shorter the actual parochial business in which the interests of the electors were concerned would be the principal matter on which the election would turn. Where there were triennial elections they had bodies like Ratepayers1 Protection Societies started on all sides—most absurd bodies, seeing that their object was to protect the ratepayers against their own representatives. On the other hand, what was the three years' term for? That was to protect the representatives against theratepayers. The whole thing was a contradiction. There was no analogy to be drawn between the septennial elections for Parliament and long intervals between Parish Council elections. A Parish Council was an executive body, but in Parliament the Executive body was the Government which could be turned out at any moment, or directly it lost the confidence of those who placed it in power. That was a condition of things which he should like to see prevail in connection with Parish Councils, and which, he believed, would prevail with annual elections. The inhabitants of a parish were very much better acquainted with the domestic concerns of their parish than the House of Commons was acquainted with the concerns of the Empire; therefore, they had a much better right to turn out their executive than Parliament had to turn out right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

* MR. A. C. MORTON

did not wish to waste time by discussing annual elections, as lie believed that the people generally were in favour of them. But he did want to say one word about election expenses, because he was certain they would be excessive—as they were at the present moment all over the country. London, he believed, was the only place in which an attempt had been made to reduce them, the public officials being called on to carry out the elections without charge. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take some means of compelling public officials to carry out these elections without any charge except for out-of-pocket expenses. They should not allow the scale under the Municipal Corrupt Practices Act to prevail.

* MR. TOMLINSON

[Cries of "Divide!"] was at a loss to know what kind of returning officer the right hon. Gentleman opposite would expect to get for 5s. a day. The returning officer was the man on whom really depended the fairness of the ballot, and he must be a man in whom the public could have confidence.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, they wanted simplicity at these Parish Council elections, but the President of the Local Government Board did not always give it to them. For instance, he had imparted into parochial elections all the expensive machinery of the Ballot Act. [Cries of "Divide!"] As the hon. Member for Peterborough had said, this was a question of expense, and it surely was not worth while to increase expense for the sake of having annual elections. It was said that they could get a returning officer for a few shillings [Cries of "Divide!"]—but had the right hon. Gentleman applied to the clerks of Unions to know what fees they would charge? He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had seen a great many letters from clerks of Unions who seemed to think that their emoluments would be injured by the Bill. But when the right hon. Gentleman said a few shillings, did he mean 3s.? [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] Had the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of "the living wage?" [Cries of "Question!"] Was 18s. a week—[Renewed cries of "Divide!" and "Question!"] The hon. Member for Sunderland had made a suggestion as to all three elections taking place on the same day—[Cries of "Divide!" and interruption]—but the elections did not take place at the same periods, and what was wanted was to assimilate them. He was satisfied that if all the elections took place on the same day and at the same hour the parish would be relieved of a great and unnecessary expense.

* MR. TALBOT

said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite a little while ago had said—"If you are in favour of Parish Councils, adopt the provisions of the Bill; if not, say so at once." Well, the Opposition were in favour of Parish Councils; but they failed to see why triennial elections, which were confessedly the proper elections for other Local Bodies, should not be the proper elections for Parochial Councils. In the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, of which he happened to be a nominated member, the elections were triennial, and the result of that system was that there was hardly ever a contested election. The policy of the Board was continued from one triennial period to another—he might almost say from generation to generation. Why should not the same system of election he applied to Bodies charged with similar functions in small districts? Besides, they were establishing new representative assemblies in the country, and they should endeavour, as far as they could, to promote the smooth working of those assemblies. He considered that the longer life they were given the more likely they were to express the real desires of the people, and to carry out a wise and economic policy. The Parish Councils would have to undertake extensive works—particularly under the adoptive Acts—and he held that they would do their work better, and with more continuity if they lived three years than if they only lived for one year.

* MR. TOMLINSON

I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No!"]

Mr. Byles rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

Question put, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 141;, Noes 49.—(Division List, No. 332.)

MR. STEPHENS

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that the term of office of a Parish Council should be one year, unless successors to them be appointed within that period, and it shall be lawful for the parochial electors at a meeting to be called for the purpose at any time to supersede the Parish Council and appoint successors to them. He protested against giving a small number of parish representatives power to act tyrannically over the whole of the inhabitants for a, whole year. If they did anything wrong the electors ought to have the power of checking them. The main argument against his proposal was as to continuity, but he thought that, really, the Amendment would promote continuity and not prevent it, because it would put the electors and the elected on a proper footing. As a member of an important School Board, he knew the value of meetings between representatives and electors for removing misunderstandings. The protection which the shareholders of a company had a right to as against their Directors the population of a parish ought to possess against its Council. A Parish Council might attempt to serve its personal interests. The land in the parish, for instance, might belong to one man, and attempts might be made to injure the landowner for the benefit of the members of the Council, which attempts such a power as that contained in the Amendment might frustrate.

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the first few words could not stand as part of the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 27, leave out from the second "on," to end of sub-section, and insert "unless successors to them be appointed within that period, and it shall be lawful for the parochial electors at a meeting to be called for the purpose at any time to supersede the Parish Council and appoint successors to them."—(Mr. Stephens.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We had a discussion just now as to whether the elections of the Parish Councils should be annual or triennial, and the great objection that was raised to annual elections was the expense and annoyance of having frequent elections. The House, however, decided that the elections should be annual. The hon. Member now proposes that they shall be whenever the parish meeting desires, and that the Parish Council Bill be completely emasculated when it enters office. I cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge) moved to insert before "The," in line 35, the words— In the case of parishes with a population of less than 500, the Parish Councillors shall be elected at a parish meeting, as provided by this Act with respect to elections at parish meetings, in the case of parishes with a population of 500 or upwards. He said, the effect of this proposal, if adopted, would be that in parishes with a, population of less than 500 the Parish Councillors, instead of being elected by ballot after the parish meeting, would be elected at the parish meeting. A parish with 500 inhabitants could only have at the outside 100 electors, and it might have 80, 60, 40, 20, or even only one elector. It appeared to him ridiculous that under such circumstances all the expense, worry, and trouble of a poll should be incurred. He therefore proposed that these small parishes should elect the Parish Councillors in precisely the same manner as that in which a club elected its committee, or a County Council in most cases elected its committees. If it was thought right that there should be a ballot, he could not see why the ballot should not take place at the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board believed that polls would cost very little. He (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) believed they would cost a good deal, and, as representing an agricultural constituency, he desired to see them cost as little as possible. The Amendment would obviate the holding of polls where it was clearly absurd that polls should be held. He thought that if parish electors were not able to elect their own officers at their own meetings they were not worth very much. It might be argued that the parish meeting might be a hole-and-corner meeting. The Amendment provided that the elections should be conducted in accordance with the Act, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a few simple rules on the subject should be put into the first Schedule. It would be only necessary that a fortnight's notice should be given; that the names of the candidates should be sent in writing to the clerk; that a ballot-paper should be handed to every person present at the meeting, and that the Chairman should act as returning officer. In this way a pure, a spontaneous, and a democratic election would be obtained. The only objection that could be raised was that the secrecy of the ballot might be interfered with. No doubt some Members would say that the squire and the parson would be always looking over the shoulders of the electors and trying to see how they voted. He could not understand the squire-and-parson-phobia which appeared to possess so many Members. He believed that where the squire or the parson took part in a parish meeting, and where one or I he other was elected to the Parish Council, it would be for the good of the parish. If a man could not keep his vote secret at a parish meeting he would not be able to do so at a Parish Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 35, before "The," insert "In the case of parishes with a population of less than 500, the Parish Councillors shall be elected at a parish meeting, as provided by this Act with respect to elections at parish meetings, in the case of parishes with a population of 500 or up wards."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

If I rightly understand the Amendment—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—it practically amounts to this: that parishes with populations of less than 500 must be deprived of the ballot at the annual election of the Parish Council.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

May I be permitted to explain that I do not propose anything of the kind? A ballot may take place at the meeting. I only get rid of the unnecessary expense of a poll.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not quite see how the ballot could be taken at the meeting, but, at all events, all those who were not present would be deprived of a vote.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

My point is that I do not wish to poll the constituency. [Ministerial ironical cheers.] I mean that I wish to get rid of the needless worry of a poll. If sufficient notice is given everybody can go to the meeting, just as everybody can go to the poll.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do wish a poll to be taken, and I wish the constituency to have the full protection of the ballot quite as much in a small as in a large parish. I do not put it in any invidious way. I believe myself that wherever the squire or any other officer of the parish deserves and possesses the confidence of the electors he will be elected. We are not prepared, however, to say for a moment that these small parishes are to lose the rights and the protection which are to be given to the larger parishes. I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had been very hard upon the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Member did not wish to deprive the electors of the ballot, but only to poll them in the room to save expense. He (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) did not think the machinery proposed by the hon. Member was good, but, at the same time, he was of opinion that no good purpose was to be served by suggesting that an hon. Member wished to deprive small parishes of their liberties or rights simply because, rightly or wrongly, he suggested a cheaper electoral machinery.

MR. E. STANHOPE

The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board may he surprised to hear that I was present not long ago at a parish meeting where, having a question in dispute, we did exactly what my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment suggests. We held a ballot then and there, under so complete a system of secrecy, that I am perfectly certain that no one knew how the others voted except the person who took the votes. However, as I know that my hon. Friend's object would be misrepresented, and that it would be said in the country that we desired to prevent the parishioners having the secrecy of the ballot, I think he had better be w to the necessities of the case, and withdraw the Amendment.

COMMANDER BETHELL

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether the whole machinery of the Ballot Act would have to be employed in taking polls in the parishes, or whether any modification was to be introduced into the Bill?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

We are now on Clause 3. When we get to Clause 35 I shall be happy to explain what we propose to do.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he had been glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board speak of the squire as an officer of the parish. He was glad to think the right hon. Gentleman had so far learnt something during the discussions on this Bill as to appreciate the position of the squire of the parish. So far as that particular Amendment was concerned, he thought his hon. Friend would be prepared to admit there was something to be said in favour of taking an actual poll. He certainly preferred that, and he could not appreciate the point made by a preceding speaker as to the probability of their action being misunderstood in the country. Such a consideration should have no weight with them. Under the circumstances, probably it would be better to withdraw the Amendment.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he and his hon. Friends were very anxious upon the question of expenditure. If they were assured that they were wrong in supposing that the elections would have to be carried out at the expense of the parish, that fact would alter their attitude.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am afraid I cannot alter that attitude. I must decline to discuss Clause 35 on Clause 3. If I did, we should make no progress with the Bill.

Question put, and negatived.

COMMANDEE BETHELL

said, he had next to propose the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Salford, and he did so in order to ascertain from the Government what were their views on the question of the ballot as introduced into the Bill. It would be obvious to hon. Members who were familiar with small parishes in the country that to put in force the whole machinery of the Ballot Act in order to poll, say, 200 inhabitants, would be absurd and unnecessary. The Vice President of the Council a little while previously gave them to understand that it would not be necessary to employ the whole machinery of the ballot, and they were now anxious to have some assurance upon that point. On his side of the House they felt that to be a matter of essential importance. They wanted the elections to be carried out with the advantages of the ballot, but at the same time they wished it to be done as economically as possible. That end could be attained by authorising an alteration of the rules regulating the ballot, and by, for instance, curtailing the hours of polling.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (5), and insert,—"The nomination and election of Parish Councillors shall be conducted according to rules framed under this Act for that purpose by the Local Government Board."—(Commander Bethell.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) stand part of the Clause."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

Rules are already laid down for the regulation of nominations and elections under the Ballot Act, and if the hon. Member persists with the Amendment it will not affect the ballot, which is provided for in the clauses already passed and in the First Schedule of the Bill. If I had proposed that the nomination and election should be conducted according to Rules framed by the Local Government Board there would be a very strong objection to it on the ground of the grasping attitude of the Local Government Board and its desire to monopolise everything. However, if the Committee wishes that the Local Government Board should frame the Rules there is no reason why we should not accept the task.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he thought his hon. Friend had served a useful purpose in bringing this Amendment forward, and he was glad to hear that the President of the Local Government Board was open to conviction, and was willing to accept the responsibility if the House so decided. It was not in any way intended to affect the question of the ballot by the Amendment. It was purely and simply a question of the procedure at the nomination. The right hon. Gentleman would agree it was desirable there should be some definite and simple Rules to guide the presiding officers at these parochial elections, because if the duties of those officials were too vaguely laid down the practices in the different parishes would differ and confusion would be the result. He was not one of those who objected to trusting the Local Government Board where its services could be usefully and economically applied. It was desirable they should have a uniform practice and one which at the same time was perfectly simple, and he felt that the Local Government Board ought to lay down Rules to settle details which, though small in themselves, wore of considerable importance as affecting the validity of elections.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken had very properly pointed out that they were concerned at the moment only with nomination. But election meant nomination, although the poll was a different thing altogether. He desired to enter a caveat against the doctrine of reducing the hours in which the poll should be taken. They could not dispense with any of the hours between 8 and 8. To that there would be strong objection. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the Amendment, or one to the same effect, it would be a great saving of time. A similar course was adopted on the Education Act. After sitting up a whole night the House unanimously agreed to leave the matter to the Education Department, and from that time to this no trouble had arisen.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

We at the Local Government Board do not want this duty; but, if the House wishes, we are quite ready to undertake it. I accept the Amendment without further discussion.

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

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reflect upon the hours the poll is to be taken in. It is simply absurd that the polling book should remain open 12 hours in order to take 50 or 100 votes. Certainly shorter hours should be named.

MR. STOREY

said, he entirely concurred in the last observation. The idea of keeping a returning officer and his staff on duty for 12 hours in a parish where there were only 100 voters would be absurd, and it would clearly add very much to the cost.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he thought it absolutely absurd that the poll should be kept open from 8 in the morning till 8 at night.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! This does not arise on the Amendment.

MR. HENEAGE

said, the question was that Sub-section 5 should be left out, and in that sub-section occurred the words "a poll shall be taken," and, therefore, with all due submission, he asserted that he was in order. It was positively absurd to allow 12 hours for recording 50 votes. At Parliamentary elections returning officers now had very little to do for two or three hours, while in County Council elections they did nothing for more than half the day. Three hours would be ample for taking the poll in most parishes.

SIR R. PAGET

hoped it would be clearly understood that in accepting the Amendment the President of the Local Government Board agreed it should be in the discretion and power of the presiding officer to determine that the poll should be open for a limited number of hours. It was also to be open to him to fix the polling for such as would meet the general convenience.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is desirable that there should be no mistake. The acceptance of the Amendment will in no way interfere with the discussion of Clause 35, which relates to polls. The Committee is dealing with the nomination and election of Parish Councils; but under Clause 35 it will have to decide at what hours the poll shall be open. That is not a matter within the discretion of the Local Government Board.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

Will it deal with the fees of the returning officers?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That rests with the County Council. The House has already decided that.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Do I understand that the Local Government Board will not frame any regulations with regard to the poll?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It will be in accordance with the Act.

MR. J. LOWTHER

And it does not come within the purview of the Committee at this moment?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Committee were referred to Clause 35, and it was rather peculiar that those in charge of the Bill were consequently referring them to subsequent clauses. But they had been given to understand that the Local Government Board according to this Amendment were to frame regulations with regard to the poll, and surely that was the time to discuss details. Did the right hon. Gentleman accept the responsibility of framing regulations for the conduct of the poll?

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, the view taken by the President of the Local Government Board was the correct one. The question of how long the poll should be open must be determined in the Act itself, and it arose on Clause 35.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend bad followed the argument. He wanted to know where they were. If the hours of the polling were to be settled on a subsequent clause, then, of course, the Local Government Board would not have to decide them.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE

feared that all this difficulty had arisen through using the word "election." As used in the Amendment it was to be understood as referring to an uncontested election. Why not insert after the words "Parish Councillors," "previous to the poll."

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, "election" included polling. The Amendment ran— The nomination election of Parish Councillors shall be conducted according to Rules framed under this Act. Those Rules would be dealt with in a subsequent clause, and when that had been settled the Local Government Board would proceed to frame Rules. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet asked "Where wore they"? His answer was "On Clause 3, and not on Clause 35."

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer disagreed with the President of the Local Government Board. Which was right?

MR. COURTNEY

said, that in spite of the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were in some confusion. He admitted that ordinarily the words "nomination" and "election" should include the poll, but in the phraseology of an Act of Parliament it did not. He would move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert after "Parish Councillors," "and at any poll incident thereto."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "Councillors," to insert the words "and at any poll incident thereto."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

* SIR C. DILKE

thought that the confusion had arisen in consequence of the draftsman of the Amendment using words which were not in accordance with the Ballot Act. The only Acts or Orders in which the word "nomination" was used in the sense in which it was used in this Bill were the Poor Law Acts and Orders of the Local Government Board in relation to Boards of Guardians. But in the Ballot Act and in all subsequent electoral Acts the word "election" had been used for "nomination."

SIR R. WEBSTER

agreed that it would have been better if the word "election" had been used in the Bill.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that if the House should determine to alter the existing law with reference to the hours of poll it must be done when Clause 35 was reached; but at present the Government were willing to accept the Amendment without the addition suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he was glad to hear that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, for he thought it would be a great mistake to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. There were matters connected with the poll that should be decided by Act of Parliament, and not by the Local Government Board. He wished to point out that the Bill as it stood proposed that if candidates were not withdrawn before the close of the meeting there should be a poll. That might be a very serious infliction on an unwilling parish. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire had an Amendment which proposed that there should be an interval of 24 hours after the election, which appeared to him to be a wise proposal.

MR. COURTNEY

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

COMMANDER BETHELL

asked whether the President of the Local Government Board would put down Amendments to Clause 35 altering the hours of election?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said that, as they approached Clause 35, if he found it important on the part of the Government to introduce Amendments to the clause he would put them on the Paper.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment agreed to.

SIR R. TEMPLE moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, providing that The proceedings of every meeting of a Parish Council shall begin not earlier than 6 nor later than 8 o'clock in the evening. As the question of the hours had been discussed on the previous Amendment, he would content himself by simply moving the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 6, at end, insert "and the proceedings of every meeting of a Parish Council shall begin not earlier than 6 nor later than 8 o'clock in the evening."—(Sir R. Temple.)

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

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, the Amendment which, had been moved from the Opposition side to allow the parish meetings to fix their own hours of meeting, had been rejected on the ground that the squires and farmers would fix hours that were inconvenient to the agricultural labourers. This Amendment was put down to test the sincerity of the Government on the question of hours.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Government were perfectly sincere in putting in the hours for the parish meetings, and by an enormous majority the Committee supported us. We are equally sincere in thinking that the Parish Councils should fix their own hours of meeting.

SIR R. TEMPLE

Then will the Amendment be accepted?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Certainly not.

MR. STOREY

said, it seemed to be sometimes forgotten that the Bill was meant for others besides agricultural labourers. There were mining districts also, and he thought that the Parish Councils in the mining districts should be allowed to fix the hours of meeting themselves.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, that that very argument applied to the parish meetings, and yet the hon. Member for Sunderland did not support the Amendment which proposed to leave the hours for the parish meetings to be fixed by the parish meetings themselves.

MR. STOREY

replied that he had not been present when that Amendment was moved, or he would have supported it.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped that when the question was raised on the Report stage the hon. Member would be present to support it.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. STEPHENS

said, he was not disposed to move the Amendment which stood next on the Paper in his name, namely— In page 3, line 7, leave out "at the annual meeting," and insert "the chairman of the parochial electors shall be chairman thereof. But he wished to justify himself, because the President of the Local Government Board—in connection with another Amendment aiming at the same object— was inaccurate in charging him with having made an absurd proposal, and with asserting that there should be two kings of Brentford. He had not suggested anything of the kind. All he had suggested was that the chairman of the parochial electors should he the chairman of the parish meeting and of the Parish Council.

MR. CHANNLNG (Northampton, E.) moved to omit the words "or otherwise" from Sub-section 7, with the object of preventing the election of the chairman of a Parish Council from outside their own body. The hon. Member said that, he attached the greatest importance to this point, and he trusted that the Amendment would be accepted.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "or otherwise."

Question proposed, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Clause."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

Any County Council is at liberty to elect as chairman a person who is not a member of the Council, and Municipal Corporations are allowed the same liberty in their choice of Mayors. Why should not Parish Councils do likewise? However, I do not hold strong views on the matter one way or the other, and I will be quite willing to accept the Amendment if the general feeling of the Committee is in favour of it.

* MR. TALBOT

said, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood, which only gave a permissive power to choose an outsider. There might be no one in the Parish Council qualified to act as chairman, and it was right that the members of the Council should have the right to go outside their own body for a chairman if necessary.

MR. STEPHENS

said, he hoped very much that the Government would accept the Amendment. It seemed to him an intolerable thing that a person should be introduced from outside to become the master of the parish, for if the chairman were a strong, masterful man, he would rule the Council. Such a course would strike at the root of parochial liberty and parochial self-control, and he. therefore, most cordially supported the Amendment.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

hoped that the Committee would adhere to the subsection as it now stood. The arrangement had worked well in the case of Mayors, and he saw no reason why it should not do so in the case of the chairmen of Parish Councils. He did not think that there was any ground for the apprehension of his hon. Friend that a Parish Council would voluntarily, of its own action, go beyond their own body in order to select a master and even a tyrant.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, that several of his hon. Friends very much objected to the chairman of a Parish Council being chosen from outside the Council. If the clause were passed unamended in this respect, a door would be left open for the introduction of the "carpet-bagger," or the outside agitator, into the Parish Councils. If this Amendment were not accepted, he hoped he would be able to move the Amendment on the same subject which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston.

MR. C. HOBHOUSE (Wilts, Devizes)

was understood to say that he was in favour of the clause as it stood.

MR. BENSON (Oxfordshire, Woodstock)

said, that the fear that persons would be introduced from the outside to fill the chairs of the Parish Councils was purely imaginary. His experience of country villages was, that they were extremely jealous of strangers and persons they did not know. It was, therefore, most unlikely that any person would be chosen from the outside except he was an exceptionally qualified person. If the villagers were to be entrusted with Parish Councils at all, they surely should be entrusted with the right of choosing the chairman they pleased.

MR. CHANNING

said, that finding that the Amendment was not generally supported on the Ministerial side of the House, he asked leave to withdraw it. He had put it on the Paper, because he was aware that the feeling was strongly entertained amongst his constituents that it would be extremely undesirable to leave the Parish Councils free to go beyond their own body for a chairman.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the fact that the Amendment was not supported on the side of the House where its Mover sat was scarcely a reason for withdrawing it. He himself seemed to be somewhat in the same position as the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, for his colleagues were not, generally, joined with him in supporting the Amendment. Anyway, if the clause were adopted without amendment a bare majority in a Parish Council might bring in as chairman an active politician from a neighbouring district, who would have no connection whatever with the parish. Therefore the clause would facilitate the introduction, by co-option, of a parochial agitator from the outside to secure a party majority in the Parish Council and gag the whole parish.

MR. HENEAGE

said, the Committee would be placed in a ridiculous position if the words objected to were left in the clause. They had spent two hours in trying to find out who were the best electors for the Parish Councils. A great deal of objection had been raised to an Amendment which proposed that someone interested in the parish, but living in an adjoining parish, should be eligible for the Council if the electors chose to elect him, but now they were going to allow a carpet-bagger, who had not the courage to stand as a candidate, or who, if he did stand, had been defeated, to be co-opted by the majority in the Parish Council.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I would venture to submit to the Committee that we are now in possession of all that is to be said on both sides of the question, and I think, under the circumstances, we ought to come to a decision at once.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the Amendment was necessary to give consistency to the principles embodied in the Bill. They had got parochial electors who were to be resident in a parish for 12 months; and they had got also—what he, for one, did not want to get—residents within three miles of the parish who were eligible for election on the Council. Surely that principle ought to govern this case. Why should a Parish Council be allowed to go to the very end of the world in search for a chairman? It would be more in harmony with what had already been done if they were to limit the power of selecting a chairman by enacting that it could only be exercised in favour of a person who was capable of being elected to the Council in the ordinary way.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I would suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment, and I will bring up words on the Report stage to meet the suggestion which has been made.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he strongly objected to this plan of choosing a chairman, as it would give a bare majority on a Council the opportunity of appointing a chairman who shared their views without consulting the electorate. He should insist upon a Division.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, the Radical Party were pledged to oppose all schemes of nomination. Somebody had said that the Municipal Councils had the right to choose their Mayors from outside in this way, but they had never done it. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew they might have done it in one or two cases, but they were so few that they were not worth talking about.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he hoped the Committee would adopt, the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board. He confessed that he did not share at all the views of those hon. Gentlemen who held that no man was qualified to be the chairman of the Parish Council, or any other Local Authority, unless he had stood before the electors and been elected. They all knew there were a large number of capable men who made admirable chairmen who would shrink from undergoing even a parish election. Surely, if such men could be trusted in county affairs they could be trusted in parish affairs. He accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he would bring up the words promised.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 52.—(Division List, No. 334.)

MR. STEPHENS moved the following Amendment:— In page 3, line 11, to leave out "every Parish Council," and insert "the parochial electors of a parish. He said, he did not see why the inhabitants of a parish should be deprived of their proper position, which was that of being the holders of the property in the parish.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 11, to leave out the words "every Parish Council," and insert the words "the parochial electors of a parish."—(Mr. Stephens.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The clause as it stands enables the Parish Council in the simplest manner to exercise the powers which the House proposes to give it, and if the House should approve of that, it is necessary that the Parish Council should be a body corporate.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he thought it would be more in accordance with precedent if the Corporation to be constituted were simply the Parish Council, and he suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. TEMPLE moved, on behalf of Mr. HANBUET, an Amendment in page 3, line 13, after "any," to insert "reasonable."

Amendment negatived.

MR. C. HOBHOUSE (Wilts, Devizes) moved the following Amendment:— In page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "County Council," and insert "Local Government Board.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think the County Council would be the best tribunal to settle this matter, and I would ask my hon. Friend not to persist in his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HENEAGE moved— In page 3, line 14, after the word "direct," to insert the words "after consultation with the parish meeting of any parish affected.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 11, after the word "succession," to insert the words "and a common seal." —(Mr. Jesse Callings.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is one of the economies I desire. I found that the cost of a seal would be £4 10s., and therefore the Government think it would be better for the Parish Council to dispense with a common seal.

Question put, and negatived.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.