COMMITTEE. [Progress, 24th November.]

HC Deb 27 November 1893 vol 18 cc1812-90

SEVENTH NIGHT.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 3 (Constitution of Parish Council.)

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 14, after the word "grant," to leave out the word "notwithstanding" in line 15, arid insert the words "such relief to any destitute person as may, in their opinion, be necessary to relieve his destitution."—(Mr. II. II. Fowler.)

Amendment agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Use of schoolroom.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment standing in the name of Mr. Charles Hobhouse, In page 3, line 22, to leave out from beginning to "shall," and insert "The inhabitants of any rural parish, is out of Order. The first in Order is in the name of Mr. Stanley Leighton.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he proposed to move an Amendment to leave out the words "free of charge," and insert the words— Subject to the payment of a reasonable contribution. As a manager of a school he felt every desire to meet the circumstances of the case as generously as possible, and managers generally would be inclined to make the use of their school-houses as convenient as possible for all purposes for which the schools might be fitted upon some acknowledgment from those who were to use them. But there was a great difference between using a school upon an acknowledgment and the use of it as a matter of right. He was greatly strengthened in his argument when he turned to the precedent on which schools had been used by Public Authorities, and the way and manner in which the encroachment had developed. First of all, in the Act of 1872 school-houses were to be used for the purposes of election, but under what conditions? Why, the expenses were to be paid. It was obligatory that the managers should allow the school to be used, but all the expenses were to be paid. Next came the Allotments Act of 1890, and in this case they first found the user of the words "free of charge," but the conditions were not so large or severe as they were in this Bill, and, moreover, two of the managers could disallow any mooting under the Allotments Act which was called for the purpose of considering whether they should have allotments or not. What was the object of this encroachment on private property? The next year a Bill was brought in for the purpose of enabling the schools to be used for any purpose whatever, free of charge; whether the meeting was public, for music, dancing, or something, it was to be used free of charge. That Bill was supported by the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Committee of Council, but that Bill was not passed. Now they came to a fourth Bill brought in, proposing that the regular and adjourned meetings of the Parish Council should be held in the schools free of charge, and as a matter of right. All he asked was that these schools which were built for one purpose should not be handed over for another quite dif- ferent, and he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the enormous value of this private property that it was proposed to encroach upon in this way. It was proposed to take, free of charge, property which had been erected at a cost of £10,000,000. He thought it was very unwise to found Parish Councils upon an encroachment and attack upon private property. Hitherto Parliament had been very careful of invading private rights without giving some compensation, but no compensation was given by this Bill. Let him deal with the reasons alleged for the proposal in the Bill. The first was that in some cases the Government had contributed to the schools out of the taxes, some thirteenth or some small portion of the amount spent on the buildings; but did that give the Government a lien on the schools? Why should the Government have greater jurisdiction over the schools because it had contributed to the building? The next argument, of course, was that the secular education carried on in these schools was to a certain extent supported by an annual grant from the Privy Council, but that grant did not go to the structure of the school. When the Vice President of the Council sent down orders and requisitions that a large addition should be made to the voluntary schools, he did not send down the money to pay for those additions, but demanded that they should be done out of the private pockets of the managers or subscribers; therefore, he said they could not argue on the question of its being public money that the Local Authority should have control over the school. On such an argument they might say that Bangor College, which received £5,000 a year from the Government, should provide a place for the County Council of the Carnarvon district. It was an argument which could not for a moment hold water. On such grounds they might say that as the residence of a Cabinet Minister was paid for by the State the private dining room of a Cabinet Minister should be used by the Board of Guardians. The schools wore built from private subscriptions, and the fact that Government gave a grant was not sufficient to enable Parliament to intervene and say they would use the rooms for purposes of their own, free of charge. All he asked was that some acknowledgment should be given, or if the President of the Local Government Board were willing to meet him with regard to the question of rates, which he laid down in a subsequent Amendment, he would be satisfied; but to take this property free of charge and as a matter of right was against the old traditions of this House, which hitherto safeguarded all private property. The only claim which he put in for the managers of the schools was that the use of the schools should be subject to a reasonable fee, and that it should not be taken as a right.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 23, to leave out the words "free of charge," and insert the words "subject to the payment of reasonable contribution."— (Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,) York, W.R., Rotherham

I think the main answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite on this point is this: that the late Government, in accordance with the Resolution of this House, introduced a Bill on the subject, a Bill which was laid on the Table, and which bore upon it the names of Mr. Ritchie and Sir William Hart Dyke. That Bill included the question of meeting, not only for Parliamentary election purposes—which is not before us now—but included in its provisions meetings for the election of a Local Authority, and it, therefore, aimed specially at the question of local purposes. In that Bill the same words we now use, "free of charge," were inserted; therefore, in this matter I think we have the support of the late Government, that the schools were to be used, free of charge, for all local purposes. The questions of expense and damage were to be provided for, but I may say that the proposal of my right hon. Friend carries the question a little further, as it includes the furniture. We want to protect the schools and everything connected with them in every reasonable particular, and words have been introduced which will enable the Education Department to do that. Into the question of private property I need not go, as we are all agreed that schools in receipt of Parliamentary grants may reasonably be asked to admit for a variety of purposes meetings free of charge.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

only rose for the purpose of confirming the statement of the Vice President of the Council. This House came to a deliberate decision as to the use of the schools for particular purposes, and expressed the opinion that those schools, which were the only available places for public meetings, should be used by the inhabitants of the village, and that all that should be paid for such use was out-of-pocket expenses, such as heating, lighting, or necessary preparations that had to be made. That was the decision at which the House arrived then, and upon which they acted. He hoped his hon. Friend would see good reason to rely on that, and not press the Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, the proposal in the present Bill went a good deal beyond that of the Bill to which his hon. Friend had just referred. The proposal in the present Bill was not merely to grant the use of the schools for the purposes of public meetings, but to grant them free of charge for the purposes of administration, by a Body constituted by Parliament with power to levy rates in order to carry on the administration.

SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member below him about the Bill of the late Government, might he not ask whether the Bill of the late Government did not relieve the school of the rates? He was under the impression that it did, and his hon. Friend would meet the right hon. Gentleman, if he would look at the matter from that point of view.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would inform the Committee how that was? because his recollection was that it was in the Bill.

MR. ACLAND

Yes, it was.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman understood that no objection would be raised to the principle that was contained in the Bill which had been alluded to. It might be taken as a quid pro quo.

MR. ACLAND

I cannot say that; we had better deal with that when it comes up.

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

said, the rating of a parish would be a small thing, and it would be a graceful concession if the proposal were made to free those schools from the rates. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way, in his answer, to give a quid pro quo.

MR. ACLAND

I did not intend to express it in any unfair way, but I think it necessary to recall what happened in 1892 on this point. There was a Bill introduced before the House on the rating of schools, but the Resolution of the House on the question of public meeting was accepted on the general principle of a quid pro quo. Suggestions were made that that principle might be added to the Bill, and the Government, if I remember rightly, said they would consider it. I am quite sure they accepted our Amendment without any reserved conditions on the subject at all. I think I am right in saying that—["No, no!"] That may be so, but I am right in saying when the right hon. Gentleman raised the question of "free of charge," the late Government never made any suggestion of a charge to be made. On its merits we specially say we are not inclined to sanction the making any charge whatever.

SIR R. PAGET

thought it should be made perfectly clear that the expense of cleaning, lighting, and warming, or any damage should not be thrown as a burden on the school.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would consent to a small charge, as some sort of an acknowledgment?

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 23, after the word "times," to insert the words "and after reasonable notice."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked if he was to understand that no power would be given to the Local Authority to override the management of the school except by reference to head-quarters?

MR. ACLAND

The object will be to try and draw some definition of what is really reasonable notice according to what is accepted in the locality.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that was not quite the point. He was quite in favour of these schools being made available, as he thought they might be better employed than in holding night classes; therefore, he should be sorry to have any unnecessary difficulty thrown in the way of a legitimate use of the building. But what he was referring to was that the discussion, brief as it had been, appeared to have been conducted on the supposition that all the Local Authority had to do was to give reasonable notice, and that all other engagements had to give way to this important Local Authority, and therefore it was that he desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to this matter. There should be reasonable power reserved under the Act to those responsible for the school for carrying out the engagements they had already made. For instance, a school was very often the only available building in a village where entertainments—some of which, they had been told, might compete rather in the form of rivalry with the Parish Councils—could be held. Although, of course, a school would not hold a circus, it nevertheless was the means of accommodating the purveyors of innocent and profitable forms of entertainments which provided amusement in localities not largely endowed with profitable enjoyment of that kind. It must be clearly and distinctly understood that the Local Authority was not to be able to come down at a few days' notice and knock on the head engagements which might have been entered into, for the general advantage probably of the locality, perhaps many weeks before. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care that reasonable power was left in the hands of the authorities responsible for the school to carry out engagements of a bonâa fide and legitimate character which they had already contracted.

MR. ACLAND

thought it perfectly reasonable that engagements which had been made some time before should, as far as possible, be kept, and that Local Authorities should adhere to such reasonable form of engagement.

* MR. W. LONG

How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do that?

MR. ACLAND

I will do my best to arrange that it shall include such a proposition.

* MR. W. LONG

considered that some words should he put into the Bill such as these—"subject to the room not being previously engaged." The argument that this room was the only available room in the village applied both ways. It applied with considerable force in reference to the meetings for Parish and Council purposes; but, at the same time, it must be remembered that it was the only room available for other purposes. It might be that a meeting had been arranged for some religious or secular purpose in connection with the parish, and it would appear from the wording of this section as it stood that it would entitle the Local Authorities to the use of the room by command, even though there had been some other previous arrangement entered into between the managers and people in that village. He was not quite sure it would be altogether wise to leave the matter to regulations by the Education Department. He thought that if Parliament gave a statutory right to the parish meeting or the Parish Council, however the Education Department might desire to meet the case, it would be unable to do so. This clause as it stood would give the Parish Council and the parish meeting a statutory right to the command of the room after having given reasonable notice, and he did not believe it would be possible for the Education Department to provide that reasonable notice should be given subject to the room not being already engaged. No difference would occur where a good feeling prevailed, as it would do in the majority of cases; but they ought not to insert a provision which would lead to unpleasantness in places where there was a difference.

MR. ACLAND

said, it would be a little difficult to frame words on the spur of the moment to meet the case; but he submitted that the words "reasonable time" gave the Department large powers to protect the school.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

pointed out that the Government Bill of 1892 contained a provision in a sub-section of Clause 3, to the effect that if the use of the room on the said day and at the said time had been, previously to the receipt of the notice of meeting, granted for any other purpose or would interfere with the educational objects of the school, in that case the room was not to be used. Those words were actually in type, so that there would be no difficulty whatever in inserting words taken from the Bill of 1892.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

suggested that a time limit, say of two weeks, should be inserted.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

, speaking as Chairman of a rural district School Board, said they generally held most of the meetings for their technical education schemes in the schoolrooms, and they were fixed for some time in advance. The meetings were gradually getting bigger and bigger; the schoolrooms were more and more used in rural districts for that purpose, and he should be very glad, indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to inserting some clause or modification of the words "reasonable time" in order to ensure that they who were holding these numerous meetings in the Board schoolrooms should not be interfered with by this new scheme. Without having the slightest feeling of hostility to the meeting of the Parish Council in the schoolroom, he should be sorry if those who had fixed the meetings in advance for a whole course of lectures were deprived of the privilege of meeting in the schoolroom.

MR. ACLAND

said, one of the very first conditions of the Education Department would be that there should be no unreasonable interference with the educational engagements in the school, which were the first purposes for which the school was instituted. Evening school arrangements and County Council schools ought to be considered to have a prior right in the matter.

* MR. W. LONG

could see no objection to the introduction of the words suggested by the hon. Member for Wigan. Those words were— That nothing in this Act shall give any right to hold a public meeting in any such schoolhouse (under certain conditions) if the use of the room on the said day and at the said time has been, previously to the receipt of the notice of meeting, granted for any other purpose, or would interfere with the educational objects of the school. That was made conditional upon the engagement being made previous to the receipt of the notice. He would point out that under the Bill it was not suggested that the meetings should be held very numerously during the year, nor was it likely that the meetings would have to be held continuously. There would be a regular interval and probably plenty of time beforehand to give notice, and this would only protect the use of the room in favour of any engagement made previous to the notice given by the Local Authorities. He did not wish in any way to prejudice the position of the Local Authorities; and if these words, taken from the Allotments Act, could be inserted they would remove all justifiable fears as to interference with educational purposes.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the difficulty about that was that these words were too wide. He thought the insertion of such a provision might, perhaps, lead to local wrangling, which they all wished to avoid. The intention of the House was that the use of the rooms for educational purposes was to be supreme, and that nothing was to be put in competition with that. Let them see how the thing practically worked out. After the first meeting was held the Parish Council would fix the dates of its meetings, and the days would be fixed for the parish meetings, even in case they were held four times a year. They might rest assured that the local representatives, in fixing their arrangements, would consult the general convenience, and the outcome would be that the parish meeting would become an annual day, and the Parish Council would have its regular date of meeting. Whilst he was entirely in sympathy with the desire that there should be nothing of an oppressive or annoying character, he thought it better to leave the matter in the hands of the Education Department, who would issue such specific rules as would interpret their notion of reasonable time and reasonable notice. He thought that in the generality of cases the notice should be quite as long as the hon. Gentleman opposite had suggested—namely, a fortnight. He believed his right hon. Friend was prepared to accept an Amendment later on, that there should be no interference with the use of the schools for educational objects. He thought, there- fore, that it was better to leave the matter in the hands of the Education Department.

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague had approached the subject from a practical standpoint, with which he had little fault to find. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied himself, or would do so, that the power which he said the Education Department would exercise would be passed under this Act if it became an Act. Although he appreciated the disposition of the Vice President on this subject, they must remember that the discretion of the Department was a matter which they would not like to rely too much upon. If the Department retained the discretionary power, he did not know that they need go much further. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman had satisfied himself that if the Hill became law his Department would retain the power of making these regulations. He should rather have thought that Subsection 3 tied his hand very considerably, because the question arose under that section as to what was a reasonable or suitable time? He should think that a Bench of Judges would hold that the discretion of the Department was confined to the particular point as to whether the notice was a reasonable or suitable time. He did not think it could be held that the Education Department was to decide as between rival notices for different objects. The Local Authorities had a statutory right to the use of the buildings subject to certain specified conditions defined by Act of Parliament. He dared say, before this Bill got out of the House, the right hon. Gentleman would undertake, on the Statute itself, that it was made perfectly clear that the Education Department had a discretionary power, and could exercise that discretion with regard to matters of this sort.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that certain Amendments following on the Paper were out of Order.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, with regard to the Amendments out of Order he should like to say one word with the view to moving an Amendment. In one of the Amendments the Member for the South Molton Division of Devonshire (Mr. Lambert) had proposed to insert words which would have made the Bill read — "Any charitable, educational, political, or parish meeting." Evidently, the hon. Member had in his mind the idea that parish meeting was not a technical term, and might mean any meeting of parishioners. He thought that ought to be clear on the Bill, and he would suggest that, after the word "meeting," they should insert the words "under this Act."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Thirsk comes before that.

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

said, no doubt the Amendment he was about to move would carry out the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. It was obvious throughout the Bill that "parish meeting" was a technical term. When they were establishing an institution called the parish meeting, what that clause meant was— For the purpose of any meeting of the parish meeting. It was just as much an institution as the Parish Council. He proposed, therefore, after the word "any," in line 24, to insert the words "meeting of the," so that the clause would read— For the purpose of any meeting of the parish meeting. Without such a qualifying statement the words in the section would be extremely vague, and any number of questions might arise as to what was the meeting of the parish.

Amendment proposed, After the word "any," in line 24, to insert the words "meeting of the."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he confessed he did not understand why the Amendment was moved. This provision was for the purpose of any parish meeting. The parish meeting was created, defined, and regulated by the Act. It could not be any other parish meeting but the meeting created by this Act. There was no such thing at this moment as a parish meeting. There was a Vestry, but no such thing in law as a parish meeting. They were now transferring certain powers to a new body; by Statute they prescribed how it was to be called, how its proceedings were to be regulated, and they called it a parish meeting. For the purpose of any parish meeting the parochial electors were to be entitled to the use of a suitable room. One of these purposes might be for a meeting of a committee of the parish meeting, and they could not exclude the committee from having the use of the room.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, the parish meeting was certainly not defined in the Definition Clause of the Bill. As to the committee of the parish meeting, would it not be easy to insert words as they were inserted in the Allotments Act of 1890, and say "or any committee"? At present the matter was left very vague.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it would perhaps meet the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite if, instead of using the word "any," they said "for the purpose of the parish meeting."

MR. J.GRANT LAWSON

said, that would carry out his object, and he would withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 24, to leave out the word "any," and insert the word "the."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. LEON (Bucks, N.) moved the following Amendment:— In page 3, line 25, after the word "Council," to insert the words "or for any inquiry for parochial purposes by the Local Government Board, or any other Government Department or Local Authority, or for the purpose of holding meetings to discuss any question relating to allotments, under the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, or under this Act, or the candidature of any person for the District Council or the Parish Council.

By his Amendment he only proposed to put words into this clause which he was sure were left out inadvertently by the Government, and which, as the Government accepted the principle, they could scarcely refuse to accede to. He could quote instance after instance where the injustice of withholding schoolrooms for public meetings was keenly felt. In his own constituency there were 123 villages, 65 of which had no place of public meeting except the schoolrooms. There could be no more popular Amendment than this which he urged the Government to accept. He contended that these rooms, which were called national rooms, and which received from the State something like 80 per cent. of the money requisite to keep them going, should be under the control of the people. The other day, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Rugby, the Vice President said that a Bill would be introduced dealing with the whole question of schoolrooms. He was sure, at any rate, that all Radicals would welcome that Bill; but a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and they wished to have these words put into the present Bill, as, owing to the congested state of business in that House, they were afraid the Vice President would not be able to pass such a Bill as he had indicated before the elections to the Parish Councils came on. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 25, after the word "Council," to insert the words "or for any inquiry for parochial purposes by the Local Government Board, or any other Government Department or Local Authority, or for the purpose of holding meetings to discuss any question relating to allotments, under the Allotments Acts, 1887 and 1890, or under this Act, or the candidature of any person for the District Council or the Parish Council."—(Mr. Leon.)

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

MR. ACLAND

said, there were two Amendments on the Paper—that of the hon. Member for North Bucks and that of the hon. Member for Somerset—which covered certain cases of inquiry and meetings of different sorts in connection with local government purposes, and, plainly, most of them would agree that though they would be rarely held for parochial purposes, the schoolroom might be available. This clause, which would become a general clause, included meetings under the Allotments Act in a modified form. As to the other question about candidates for the District and Parish Councils, he thought that if they carefully considered the objects in view they would see that what the section did was this: It enabled the Parish Council or the parish meeting—for, of course, the parochial electors were the parish meeting—to call, if they wished it, certain meetings having for their object the hearing of candidates. He wanted hon. Members carefully to boar that in mind. It was not a question of an outside candidate coming in and saying—"I must have this schoolroom on a certain date"; it was the question of the Parish Council or the parochial electors—that was, the parish meeting— saying whether they wished to have a meeting in the schoolroom for candidature purposes, and under that condition the Government was willing to accept the Amendment. There was only one condition he thought they must make to the next sub-section about expenditure — namely, that if any such meeting was held for candidature purposes at the request of the Parish Council or parish meeting the expenses must be provided for by those on whose behalf such meeting was held. It was perfectly clear the expenses of any candidature meeting which was desired by the Parish Council or parish meeting could not come out of the poor rates, and, therefore, he should propose to add words to the end of the next sub-section providing that any such expenditure for candidature meetings should be paid for by those on whose behalf such meeting was desired. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would not, think that a very unreasonable request. They had the annual parish meeting which elected its Parish Council, and at the end of the Bill special provisions were made about the election of the Parish Council. They had the provision that at the parish meeting which elected the Parish Council questions might be put to the candidate for the Parish Council. That was to say, when the parochial electors met in their annual meeting certain members were proposed as Parish Councillors who could then be asked questions; and this would largely help to do away with the necessity for a poll. In order to avoid great prolongation of this questioning, the parish meeting, or the Parish Council itself, might desire, a fortnight or a week before the parish meeting was assembled, to elect the Councillors, that there should be by common consent what might be called a candidature meeting, at which candidates should be heard. They could only be thus heard by common request, either of the Parish Council or the parish meeting. It seemed to him that a meeting of that kind might reasonably be held subject to the provision he had named, that the expenses should be paid by those upon whose behalf the Parish Council or parish meeting called such meeting. In that sense he thought they might reasonably accept the Amendment.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

thought the Government made a mistake in importing this provision into the clause. He did not say so because of any desire to hinder the holding of public meetings in the schoolrooms, but he thought they should bear in mind that the primary purpose for which these rooms were intended was that of education. The result of the action which the Government proposed to take was that there would be so many demands for the use of the rooms for other purposes that their use for educational purposes would be seriously interfered with. In the first place, they would be used for a very different duty from that for which they were intended—they would be used for inquiries by the Local Government Board or other Department or Local Authority.

MR. ACLAND

For parochial purposes.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, that might be so—it might be for parochial purposes; but these inquiries would be held in the schoolrooms, which, by the Rules of the Education Department, must be devoted primarily for educational purposes. An Inspector of the Local Government Board could not go about and hold his inquiries solely in the evening, and his holding them in the morning would interfere with the educational purpose of the buildings. Then, again, it was proposed that the rooms might be used for the candidature of persons standing for the County Council, the District Council, or the Parish Council. This, they were told, was to depend upon the Parochial Council or the parochial meeting; but ho could find nothing in the Amendment to that effect. But even if it were so, the Parish Council might consist of those who might not agree that the room should be used for all these purposes. It was, in his opinion, an unfair thing that the rooms could be used in this way, or that such power should be conferred upon the Parish Council. He regretted that the Government had accepted the Amendment with- out some discussion in the House. It seemed to him that it would throw great practical difficulties in the way of the working of the schoolrooms for educational purposes.

* SIR W. HART DYKE (Kent, Dart-ford)

said, he thought the Committee had gone as far as it could reasonably go in regard to this question. They appeared to agree to the proposal in a very liberal spirit on both sides; but he would remind the Government that these schools wore essentially private property. He would like to say a word on behalf of the Education Department. He would venture to say, after six years' experience in the Department, that if this Amendment was enacted, it would be practically impossible for the Department to defend the interests of education from the encroachments that would be made upon them. It seemed to him that hon.—and, he might say, right hon.—Gentlemen opposite had arrived at the conclusion that there would be no contentious matters dealt with at these meetings at all. They knew such matters arose at Vestry meetings, and they were quite aware that there must be very contentious matters to be dealt with at these Parish Council meetings. They not only proposed that Local Government and other Departmental inquiries should be held in the schoolrooms, but that they should also be granted for the purpose of candidature in connection with Parish, District, and County Council elections.

MR. ACLAND

It is not an addition at all.

* SIR W. HART DYKE

said, he did not see how the meeting of the school itself was to be held, or held properly, after the election meetings on the previous night. He had been at meetings where a considerable amount of furniture had been smashed and other mischief done. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) laughed, but he would ask, was this any guarantee that these meetings would not be noisy or damage done inside the buildings? What protection were they to have in the schools? They had none whatever under this clause, and ho said it would be practically impossible, if this Amendment were adopted, for the Education Department adequately to protect the interests of education. For his part, ho was willing that the House should be divided on the subject.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, he thought there was one consideration which would weigh with gentlemen opposite (the Opposition) in this matter. He hoped to do what he could, along with them, to make the working of this Bill as cheap as possible. The only places where meetings could be held wore in the school-house or in the public-house—they were the only two important buildings in the majority of villages — and he did not think they wore anxious that they should be held in the public-house.

An hon. MEMBER

If there is a nice hall behind it.

MR. STOREY

said, it was not desirable, he took it, that the meetings should be held in the public-house; and if they did not provide some place where they could be held, the parish or the Council would build a room for themselves out of the rates, and the rates would thereby be increased. He thought that was a consideration that should be remembered. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W, Hart Dyke) that ho did not laugh in any hostile spirit at what he had said with regard to furniture being broken. He had experience of that, and he quite conceded that there was a question of cost to be considered. He thought they should introduce some limitations; but he was perfectly sure that there would be a great advantage in the way of economy by allowing the use of the existing buildings for the purpose of the Bill.

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

said, they would want some limitation further than that which they had in the Amendment. The Amendment proposed that the rooms wore to be granted for various purposes, and the last purpose was for the candidature of any person for the District and County Councils or the Parish Council. Well, if they had 10, 15, 20, or 25 men standing at one of these elections, they could not all be heard on the one night. They did not mind meeting that difficulty. Was it intended that they should all hold meetings on one night?

MR ACLAND

No.

MR. WHARTON

said, he wanted to know how the clause was to operate in that respect. They would have, say, 25 councillorships and 50 candidates for them. They must have some strict limitation as to the time for using the rooms.

MR. ACLAND

said, the Education Department would make it perfectly clear that the meetings of the school itself must come first.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

Will you put that in the Bill?

MR. ACLAND

said, he was perfectly willing to put it in the Bill. The hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse) had an Amendment on the paper which he thought would cover the point, if there was any doubt about it. He hoped that would be clear enough, as it would provide that there should be no interference with the school hours of any elementary day or evening school. He thought it was very unlikely that they would have applications for the holding of meetings for 50 candidates; but, in any case, there would be no interference with the convenience of school hours.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said, it was perfectly clear that not only might the Parish Council ask for the use of the schools for these purposes, but the parochial electors might also ask. There was nothing to prevent parochial electors from doing so. The Amendment was, in his opinion, altogether unnecessary. As to the inquiries proposed to be held in the rooms, ho did not attach much importance to that part of the question, but he attached very great importance to the other powers which it was proposed to confer, especially those regarding meetings for candidates at the different elections. It was not reasonable to put into the hands of the Parish Councils such powers as were proposed, by which they could giant permission for public meetings for particular candidates, instead of allowing absolute freedom for all concerned; and if they did give power to allow meetings of ail persons for all purposes, the disadvantage to education would be very great. He regretted that the Government hail accepted the Amendment.

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

said, ho regretted that the Government had thought it necessary to introduce any controversial matter. They would have been better advised had they agreed merely that the schools should be used for administrative and local government purposes. The Amendment standing in his own name, he thought, went as far as they should go in this Bill. There were one or two things for which the schoolrooms might be used. There were various inquiries that must be held under this Bill by County Council Committees for local purposes; very often they were held on the application of the parish itself, and in those cases the use of the school should be had if there was no other public room available in the village. He found, moreover, that Parochial Committees would not, as the Bill stood, have the use of schools. There was, again, the committee of the parish meeting, which, in the small parishes, would have the same duties as the Parish Council, and it would have no right under the Bill to use the schoolroom. There was also the case of the County Council Technical Education Committees spending public money for the benefit of the parish. Such a committee was in a like position. It was only logical and just that under this Bill they should draw the line at meetings held for such local purposes. It was a question of avoiding expense, and he thought they should extend the clause for the sake of economy, but that in no case should they interfere with the school hours. Subject to the necessary limitation in that matter, ho saw no objection to the use of the schools for various purposes.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, the Amendment was a most objectionable one. Parts of it were mean and shabby, and other parts had been shown to be unworkable. The Local Government Board or other Department was to be allowed to come in and seize and make use of a schoolroom. That he considered a mean and shabby proposal. It was that to come in and take the rooms for other purposes than those of education, with no liability on the part of the Local Government or other Department for expense or for injury to the school. The liability was not on these Departments. It must go on the local rates. "Any other Government Department"—that meant that they might have the Admiralty, or the War Office, or any Department at Whitehall possessed of authority to come down and take over the schoolhouses for the purposes of their inquiries. That was mean and shabby; it was monstrous. What was monstrous also was, that these rooms were to be used for promoting the candidature of the individuals who might wish to become members of the County Councils. The Vice President had shown that other Public Bodies were to have the use of the schoolhouses free of expense. [Mr. ACLAND: No.] He thought so; for they were asked to provide that if by reason of the use of a room for either of the purposes stated any expense was incurred or any damage done the cost was to fall on the poor rate. So that he, said "Yes" in reply to the right hon. Gentleman. He wanted to get this provision into the right hon. Gentleman's head. Under this provision any Government Department might claim the use of, and might use, a schoolroom, and they were not to be liable for any expense, that might be incurred. All must be paid out of the rates. Then, let them look at the candidate. He was to come in and use this room, and he was to pay for it. That was an admission that he had no right to use the room at all. They might use the room for the purposes of the parish, and for no other purpose whatever; but he could not see why they should allow a candidate to come in and pay for it, showing that he had no right to be there. He moved that all the words after the words "this Act" be omitted.

Amendment proposed to the proposed. Amendment, To leave out all the words from the words, "this Act" to the end of the Amendment.— (Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

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

MR. COUKTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, they must look at the Amendment and judge it by the primary words of the clause. The Local Government Board had no power at all in the matter. It was provided that the parochial electors and the Parish Councils should be entitled to use the rooms for these purposes. The initial act must come from the parochial electors. They were the persons who were to require the rooms to be used. He wished to ascertain how the parochial electors were to act. If they got the parochial electors all together the room could be used for these purposes. But what was meant by "parochial elector," and how was the system to work? Did the Government mean that this could be1 done by half-a-dozen electors? They must have some form—a certain number of the whole parish. How were they to be all brought together for the purpose of dealing with the candidature meetings? It was not a bad plan to make the allowances proposed; but there was no machinery, as far as he (Mr. Courtney) could see, and until they solved that question he did not see that they gained anything by discussing the purposes for which the meetings were to be held.

MR. ACLAND

said, the parochial electors were the whole body of the parochial electors, and the only way in which they could act was through a parish meeting.

MR. COURTNEY

Then, you would call a parish meeting first.

MR. ACLAND

Yes.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

said, as he understood the matter, the Government proposed to confine the use of these rooms for very limited purposes, practically connected with the work of the parish meeting or Council. He confessed he did not think it was right that the rooms should be used for so very limited a number of purposes. He did not know whether the course followed in boroughs would be of any service in the villages, but he knew that in many boroughs—certainly in the borough of Birmingham—they allowed the use of schoolrooms for every legitimate public purpose. No public body had to ask. Any private individual could ask for the room. Candidates could have rooms in that way. He would like to say that that had gone on since the Education Act of 1870 was passed, and it was approved and appreciated by all parties. He had never heard the slightest complaint. There was perfect impartiality in the granting of the rooms, both as regarded the people to whom they were granted and the subjects discussed He had never heard of a case of refusal. He dared say the rooms would not be granted for the discussion of irreligious subjects, subjects opposed to morality, or for disloyal purposes; but, beyond that, there was no restriction. Supposing they were to apply that to the villages. It was undoubtedly true that, if there was no parish hall, and if they had a room—a well-lighted, comfortable place—it would be very desirable that it should be granted for all legitimate purposes. He considered it would be an enormous advantage. He thought it would be well if the proposal of the Government were widened in that way. In the case of the School Board, as in Birmingham, they could make a charge. The School Board, being a public body, had a right to distinguish between public property and other rights. It would be the same in the case of private schools. The parties would be entitled, in the case proposed by the Government, to make a moderate charge for the use of the rooms. It was perfectly fair, when a transfer of that kind took place, that there should be a charge for the use of the building. Then there was some protection required for the managers of the schools. Subject to those two conditions—a reasonable charge and the protection of the managers against improper demands— he thought it would be very much to the advantage of the village that the schoolrooms should be used for those purposes.

COLONEL LOCK WOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council interpreted the clause differently to the hon Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. What the right hon. Gentleman meant was an ordinary meeting held in the schoolroom after the parish meeting, but the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire contemplated a series of discussions going on as to the merits and demerits of the various candidates brought up for election. According to the latter view, any candidate would be able to lay his opinions before the constituency, and in some cases those opinions would be expounded at interminable length. If they were going to allow 15 candidates to put their views before the constituents night after night, a week would not suffice for the business. He protested against a School Board schoolroom being used for such a purpose.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

wished to know whether, if the Amendment were passed, and the Local Government Board wished to have the use of the schoolroom, say, for the purpose of holding an inquiry, the assent of the parish electors and the Parish Council would first have to be obtained? ["Yes!"] He was glad to have that clear, because it seemed to him that the words of the proposal did not quite carry that impression. He was glad to have the assurance of the Vice President of the Council that the authorities would have to be consulted. He would only like to add one word of warning against using the schoolroom too largely for this sort of petty electioneering purpose. He was with the hon. Member for Sunderland in his wish to make a frank and generous use of these rooms for public purposes; but he would not consent to such user at the expense of the legitimate purposes for which the rooms were built. He trusted that the rights of those who owned the schools would not be ignored.

MR. ACLAND

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had referred, generally, to meetings for public purposes. The Government were in favour of the system which had boon so generously practised in Birmingham in lending schools for a great variety of public purposes. But to discuss the use of these rooms for all public meetings had been already ruled out of Order as not being cognate to the present Bill. Therefore, they were confined here to definite local government purposes. The Government were simply following the lines laid down by the late Government in regard to allowing the use of suitable rooms for purposes connected with the elections free of charge.

* MR. W. LONG

said, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, to the effect that the system practised in Birmingham should be adopted in the Bill, would carry them further than they ought to go with regard to the use of these schoolrooms. There was a vast difference between a voluntary arrangement on the part of the Birmingham School Board, by which the rooms could be used on payment of a certain fee, and the compulsory arrangement now proposed. The rooms might not only be ordinary School Board schoolrooms, but schoolrooms built and maintained by voluntary subscription. Whatever hon. Members might think as to the advisability of School Board schools and voluntary schools being put on the same footing, they surely would not argue, having regard to the existing state of the law, that voluntary schools should be freely used for public purposes. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had been correct in his earlier remarks as to the Government proposing to do what had been done by the late Government. But he was now travelling beyond the proposals of the late Government. The late Government, in Section 5 of the Allotments Act of 1890, provided for the use of schoolrooms for all reasonable purposes in connection with the granting of allotments. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, however, proposed that schoolrooms should be available for local government inquiries, and all parochial purposes——

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out that the question at present before the Committee is as to whether certain words shall be omitted from the proposed Amendment.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he had been drawn into the digression owing to the remark of the Vice President of the Council on Education that the action of the Government to-day was identical with that of the late Government. The question was, whether the words "or the candidature of any person" should stand in the Amendment or not? If they could apply the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham all over the country, and provide for the payment of a fee, there might be something to be said in favour of the proposal. In the School Board, or urban, districts the people who used the schoolrooms were by no means the people who maintained the buildings; but in the rural districts, if they called upon the parish to pay compensation, the burden would have to be borne by those who paid for the building. He felt very strongly that they ought not, under an Amendment of this kind, to extend the use of the schoolrooms to every kind of candidature in local elections. They were increasing the number of local elections very rapidly, and if this proposal were accepted he feared that the schools would be interfered with. He would support the Motion to exclude the final words of the Amendment.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, it was desirable to have in the Bill some definition of the words "reasonable" and "suitable." What were "reasonable times" and "suitable rooms"? He hoped that in Sub-section 3 satisfactory definitions would be inserted. With regard to the Amendment immediately before the Committee, the words "or under this Act" should be omitted, or meetings might be held in schoolrooms to discuss any question arising under the Bill.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he thought there were good reasons why the Amendment should he accepted. The clause could not possibly stand as framed. It surely could not he contended that before any meeting could he held in a schoolroom, however practical in character, a parish meeting must he called. The Amendment, contained the words "or the candidature of any person," and if there were to he a parish meeting held to say whether a candidate should have the use of a room a difference of opinion might arise, and the privilege might be given to A whilst it was refused to B. It would be well for the Government to consider this matter, for, certainly, the clause in its present shape was unworkable. He would prefer to see a provision of a wider character introduced, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, under which reasonable payments would be made for the use of schoolrooms. People seemed to think that there was no such thing as wear and tear in connection with these rooms. For his own part, he should be inclined to vote against the whole clause. The more they left out of it the better. He would suggest that the Amendment should stop at the words "Local Authority."

MR. J. LOWTHEB

said, the Committee seemed to have got into a tangle. It had been pointed out that in order to enable the clause to be put into operation there would have to be a parish meeting. Where was that meeting to be held? There would have to be a meeting held to enable Clause 4 to be made of any avail. Did the right hon. Gentleman realise that, or was he (Mr. Lowther) in error in that supposition? Where there was no Parish Council a parish meeting would have to be held to decide whether the room was to be made available for the purpose of holding the parish meeting. Was the room to be used with or without the consent of those interested? It was important that this matter should be cleared up. But what he thought was of still greater moment was, that every person who desired to hold a meeting for the furtherance of his own candidature should not be called on to ask the intervention, possibly, of his opponents to obtain the use of a room for him.

MR. ACLAND

said, that an Amendment would be proposed to provide that where the room was used for or on behalf of a candidate the expense consequent upon any damage done to the room should be borne by that candidate.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not see why the candidate should not negotiate for the use of the room without the intervention of a parish meeting. He thought there ought to be something in the nature of a deposit or security against damage to the building or its furniture. [Cries of "Oh!"] An unknown person might make a request for the use of a room, and precautions should be taken in such cases. At the same time, ho was in favour of the rooms in question being available for all bonâ fide purposes of a public character. It would be unreasonable to ask managers of schools to give up the use of schoolrooms on occasions when they might require them for their own purposes. The Education Department and the Local Government Board, he imagined, would admit that provision should be made for the payment by them of adequate compensation where damage was done owing to their making use of a schoolroom. As to the clause itself, he objected altogether to its framework.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the subject under discussion was the Amendment to the clause.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked whether he was to understand that a candidate who asked to have the use of the schoolroom would have first to obtain the assent of the Local Authority?

MR. H. H. FOWLEE

Yes.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that if that were so it was a curtailment rather than an enlargement of the liberty which was intended to be given by the late Government last year.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 115.—(Division List, No. 335.)

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

MR. STANLEY LE1GHTON

—[Cries of "Divide!"]—was understood to say that hon. Members were mistaken if they thought they were likely by interruptions such as these to bring the discussion to an earlier termination. The clause would have to be re-drafted, but the difficulty was that they could not re-draft what they had already passed. The governing words were "The parochial electors and the Parish Council," and the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that that meant the parish meeting. If that were the case, why had he not said so? If the parish meeting or the Parish Council had to give a licence for the user of the room, how were they to do it? He would ask the Solicitor General whether it would be necessary, before the room could be used for any of the purposes mentioned in the clause, to hold a preliminary parish meeting to sanction such user?

SIR R. WEBSTER

I have not hitherto intervened in this Debate, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I do not do so with the view of obstructing, and would put a question to the Vice President of the Council as to the position in which he is placed owing to the drafting of the Amendment. It appears that the parochial electors will only act in public meeting. Well, I trust that this matter will be considered before the Report stage, because my impression is that the words "parochial electors" will not be sufficient for parish meeting, but will be taken, having regard to the scope of the clause, as meaning more. There might be cases in which numbers of parochial electors might wish to meet without the formality of a parish meeting. The Vice President of the Council stated that he proposed to add words to this section to provide that under certain circumstances there should be payment for the room. Well, the clause begins with the statement that the parochial electors shall be entitled to use the room "free of charge." I think that, inasmuch as it is now intended, as I gather, to insert words limiting the scope of the Amendment, the drafting of the sub-section requires revision. Possibly, when a matter of this kind comes on, it would be more convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would state how the whole clause would stand as amended, as it is difficult to follow the drafting of an Amendment unless one sees how it fits in with the clause.

MR. ACLAND

The House is already aware of our intentions. We will un- dertake to bring up words on Report which will make the matter perfectly clear. [Cries of "In what sense?"] in the sense that if the Parish Council and the parish meeting resolve the room shall become available.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I think it would have been very much simpler if the Government re-worded the clause so as to make it read in some such way as this—"any suitable room in the school house," &c.— may be used free of charge at all reasonable times for the purpose of any parish meeting," &c. As the words at present stand, they appear to enable the Parish Council and the parish meeting not merely to use the room for their own purposes as the Bill originally intended, but to sanction the use of property which does not belong to them for other purposes. I do not think the Government want such a provision as that, and such an alteration as I have suggested would do away with any idea of the kind.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 216; Noes 114.—(Division List, No. 336.)

Amendment proposed,

After last Amendment, to insert the words or of any committee or officer, appointed either by such meeting or council or by a county or district council, or to administer public funds within or for the purposes of the parish." —(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. ACLAND

We accept the Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the Amendment was inconsistent with the Amendment which had just been adopted. The two Amendments did not go well together.

MR. ACLAND

replied, that if necessary it could be set right afterwards.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 28, after the word "rate," to insert the words "Provided that this enactment shall not authorise the use of any room used only as part of a private dwelling-house, nor authorise any interference with the school hours of an elementary day or evening school." — (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR R. PAGET

thought the Amendment should he widened so as to include a room or house in which technical education would be given.

MR. TOMLINSON moved, to omit the word "only" from the proposed Amendment. Why go into an inquiry as to whether a room was used "only" as part of a private dwelling-house? The schoolmaster, for instance, might use a room in his dwelling-house for the purpose of giving lessons in wood carving. Surely such a room should also be excluded from the operations of the enactment?

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "only."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

thought that some provision should be made to provide against interference with instruction given to school teachers after school hours.

MR. ACLAND

said, he did not think such instruction was in any way likely to be encroached on by the Bill. He was sure the Parish Council would do everything they could to guard against technical instruction being interfered with, but the Government could not include it in the clause.

MR. BRODKICK (Surrey, Guildford) moved, to add at end of the proposed Amendment— of any meeting, for which the room may have been already granted by the manager.

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

SIR R. TEMPLE moved, to add at the end of the proposed Amendment— Provided also that this enactment shall only apply to a room in a schoolhouse where there is no other public room in the parish which can be used free of charge for the purposes aforesaid.

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

MR. ACLAND

said, that if the words were inserted, they would give rise to considerable difficulty and squabbling, and might be held to apply to a room in a public-house.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, that this clause did not apply to parish schoolrooms, but only to elementary schoolrooms in rural parishes. He thought it was most desirable that a Parish Council should have the same facility for having its own parish room, just as a Town Council should have its own town hall, and he would suggest that where a room was provided by the parish for the use of the parish meeting of the Parish Council and vested in the parish only for that purpose, the elementary schoolrooms should be exempted from the operations of the clause.

MR. ACLAND

said, that when they got to the end of the Bill and saw what provisions there were about rooms, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman might be fairly considered.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, the great point to provide for was that the schoolrooms should only be used when there was no other room available for the purpose.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, it could not possibly be held that the words he had proposed would apply to a room in a public-house. His object was to provide that where there was a public room in the parish schoolroom should not be used. He was, however, willing to withdraw his Amendment in favour of the Amendment suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, To add to the proposed Amendment, "Provided also that this enactment shall not apply to a room in a schoolhouse where there is a suitable public room in the parish, vested in the Parish Council, which can be used free of charge for the purposes aforesaid."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he objected to the words "suitable public room," because they tended, in his opinion, to encourage parochial expenditure in the way of building parish halls. If the idea which hon. Gentlemen had in their minds was that every parish, however small, ought to incur the expense, at the cost of the ratepayers, of providing a parish hall or room, that would be a most wanton expenditure of the ratepayers' money. If a schoolroom was available for these meetings, surely a parish hall was unnecessary. All that it was necessary to provide against was that the schoolroom should not be requisitioned if there was a suitable room in the parish available for the purpose; but He thought it was altogether unnecessary to insist that that suitable room should be vested in the parish.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government would accept the Amendment as moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol. He sympathised with the protest of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet against useless expense, but he did not think that the clause would lead to it. It was not likely that the Parish Council would build a hall for those purposes, and thereby tax themselves, when they could procure a schoolroom free of charge for the purpose.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 28, after the word "rate," to insert the words "provided that this enactment shall not authorise the use of any room used only as a private dwelling-house, or authorise any interference with the school hours of an elementary day or evening school. Provided also that this enactment shall not apply to a room in a schoolhouse where there is a suitable public room in the parish vested in the Parish Council which can be used free of charge for the purposes aforesaid."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 29, to leave out the word "either," and insert the word "any."— (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the word 'any' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON moved— In page 3, line.30, after the words "any expenses incurred," to insert the words "or loss sustained.

The object of the Amendment was to secure to managers of schools any loss which they might sustain in their income from the schoolrooms by letting them for concerts and other such purposes.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 30, after the words "any expenses incurred," to insert the words "or lossess sustained."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. ACLAND

said, he was sure the Parish Councils would do everything they could to avoid interfering with any arrangements made by managers for the use of their schoolrooms, but the Government could not accept the Amendment.

MR. TOMLLNSON

said, that they were dealing in this clause with a large number of schools in the country which found it hard to pay their expenses from year to year, and which were subjected to the injustice of having to pay rates for the support of the Board schools in the same districts. Now, it was proposed to deprive those schools of an indirect source of income. If such a proposal were carried it would strengthen the feeling in the country that no justice need be expected for the voluntary schools, and, certainly, the feeling of irritation against the Education Department would not be allayed.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, after second "room," to insert the words "or the furniture of the room" —(Mr. Talbot.)

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

MR. ACLAND

The Government proposed to accept the Amendment, with the addition of the words "or the apparatus for instruction."

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, after second "room," to insert "or the furniture of the room, or the apparatus for instruction."—(Mr. Acland.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, to leave out from the word "expense," to end of sub-section (2), and insert "or damage shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of the parish meeting, or Parish Council, as the case may be."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Sub-section."

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that as the schools were to be let gratuitously for all the purposes enumerated, it was hardly fair to throw the expenses on the local rates.

MR. ACLAND

We propose to meet that point later on by adding to this Amendment, when accepted, the words— Provided that where a meeting is called for the purpose of any candidature, such expense or such damage shall be made good by the persons on whose behalf the meeting is convened.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that did not meet the point raised by his him. Friend the Member for Preston, who objected to the expenses of the local inquiries for which the schoolrooms were to be used being thrown on the local rates.

MR. ACLAND

Those meetings referred to will only be held for local purposes, and in ease the Parish Council or the parish meeting ask that they shall be held. That gives a fair security that they will only be held in cases where the parish authorities are willing to pay for them.

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

suggested that managers of schools should be empowered to demand a deposit to cover possible damages, when a meeting was called for the purposes of a candidature.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he thought that the Amendment moved by the President of the Local Government Board should He made to provide for the expenses of all inquiries.

* MR. W. LONG

said, that in the Amendment a distinction would be made between meetings hold for parochial purposes and meetings held for individual candidates. That seemed to him to be a satisfactory provision, so far as the expenses were concerned, especially as they were to provide later on as to the rate on which those expenses should fall.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the clause as drawn seemed to exonerate altogether the person who might do the damage, for it provided that the expense of such damage should be defrayed by the parish. The damage might be done by some responsible person who could be made amenable for it, and he would, therefore, propose to add to the proposed Amendment, after the word "damage," the words "if not otherwise provided for."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "damage," to insert the words "if not otherwise provided for."—(Sir R. Paget.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 31, to leave out from the word "expense," to end of sub-section (2), and insert "or damage, shall be defrayed as part of the expenses of the parish meeting, or Parish Council, as the case may be."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.")

Question, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the Subsection," put, and negatived.

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

Amendment proposed, To add to the last Amendment, "Provided that where a meeting is called for the purpose of any candidature, such expense or such damage shall He made good by the persons on whose behalf the meeting is convened."—(Mr. Acland.)

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

MR. BRODRICK

suggested that the Amendment should be amended so as to provide that in cases of such meetings managers of schools might demand a deposit not exceeding £5.

MR. ACLAND

We have provided that the members of the Parish Council shall live within three miles of the parish, so that there is no need to be afraid that the persons responsible for those meetings will not be accessible.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, that what the Government was aiming at was right enough—namely, that the persons who convened those meetings should be responsible for any damage done. He thought it was but fair that as a parish meeting or a Parish Council could require the managers to provide their schools for these purposes, the parish meeting or the Parish Council should be primarily responsible to the managers for any damage. If his suggestion were adopted there would he no necessity for a deposit. The managers would look to the parish meeting or the Parish Council for the damage, and the parish meeting or the Parish Council would, under those circumstances, make sure that proper persons only should have the use of the schoolrooms.

MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

said, he sincerely hoped that the Government would not press this Amendment. If the Parish Council was the proper authority to hire the room the Parish Council and not the individual candidate should be responsible for the damage done.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, that before the Birmingham School Board lent any of their schoolrooms for a public meeting, they required an engagement signed by two ratepayers, and binding them to make good any damage that might be done in the course of the meeting. In no case were the schoolrooms allowed to be used unless there was a sufficient indemnity guaranteed by a substantial ratepayer.

Amendment proposed, To add to the last Amendment "where a meeting is called for the purposes of any candidate, such expense, or such damage shall be reimbursed by the persons on whose behalf the meeting is convened."—(Mr. Acland.)

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

MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.) moved to add at end of Sub-section 2 of the clause the words— In the case of a dispute as to the amount of expense incurred, or damage done, such amount shall be determined by a valuer, to be appointed, in the case of a school-house, by the Education Department, and in any other case by the Local Government Board, and the decision of such valuer shall be final. In case of a dispute, an action would have to be brought perhaps by the trustees or owners of the schools; but there was no provision in the Bill for bringing an action. He supposed the action would have to be brought in the County Court, but there was no provision in the Bill for that. Again, it did not state in the Bill, if an action were brought, who would defend the action. In certain cases, compensation for the expenses incurred and the damage done would have to be paid out of the poor's-rate. Who would be the defendants in such eases? Were the Overseers to be the defendants? It seemed to him ridiculous that in cases where some trifling expenses were incurred, or some trifling damage done, actions should be brought in the County Courts when such ex- pensive litigation might be avoided by some such Amendment as he now moved.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 33, after the words last inserted to insert the words,— In case of dispute as to the amount of expense incurred, or damage done, such amount shall be determined by a valuer, to be appointed in the case of a school-house by the Education Department, and in any other case by the Local Government Board, and that the decision of such valuer shall be final."—(Mr. Zees Knowles.)

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

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said, the Amendment, if accepted, would tend rather to increase than limit the expenses. If a simple plaint were brought in the County Court it would cost very little. Some of these claims would be for about 10s.; therefore, if they appointed a valuer, who would charge a couple of guineas, they would be doing mischief instead of good by adopting the Amendment.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend the Solicitor General. He did not think actions would be brought for such a small amount as 10s. Disputes were only likely to arise when the expenses incurred or the damage done were heavy, and in such cases it would certainly tend to economy if a valuer were sent down by the Local Government Board. Unless, therefore, the Bill were intended for the benefit of lawyers, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not know in whose interest this Amendment may be, but it certainly is not in the interest of the Local Government Board. It is too much to expect a great Government Department, sitting in Whitehall, to send down a valuer to measure the details of the damage in all these village disputes. No, Sir, we cannot accept the Amendment.

* MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, that the House just before the last General Election unanimously adopted a Resolution granting the use of schoolrooms supported by the rates for public meetings on matters of interest to the locality, and even for political meetings in districts where there were no halls suitable for such meetings. He thought that under this Bill the schoolhouses ought in like manner to be at the disposal of the Parish Councils for public purposes.

MR. TOMLINSON

hoped that as the Solicitor General was so much in favour of bringing these cases into the County Courts ho would introduce a clause reducing the fees of these Courts in such cases as had been done in regard to the Employers' Liability Bill.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, it might be better that the valuer should be appointed by the County Council or some other body, rather than by the Local Government Board; but as the principle of the Amendment was a good one he meant to support it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Aves 87; Noes 182.—(Division List, No. 337.)

*MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.) moved the following Amendment:— In page 3, line 35. to leave out from "determined," to end of Clause, and insert "by the County Council.

He said, the Amendment proposed that if any question should arise with reference to the compulsory use of these schools it should be referred to the County Council instead of to the Education Department in London in the case of a school-house, and the Local Government Board in other cases. As they had largely added to the purposes for which these schoolrooms might be used it was exceedingly likely that questions would arise. Schools might be let in advance; there might be special local engagements; technical classes might be held; and there might be many other interferences with the use of the school just at the time when it was wanted for the parish meeting or when a parish election was on. When the London School Board let schools for meetings sometimes there was a certain formality to be gone through, and he supposed certain formalities would have to be gone through in these cases, and possibly the school managers might frame rules and regulations with regard to meetings in the schools. That might possibly raise questions, and it was quite clear that the Government anticipated little difficulties arising which would have to be settled by some authority. It seemed to him absurd to refer this matter to a great Government Department in Loudon. Either the Education Department or the Local Government Board would have to act by sending down an Inspector to make an inquiry, or else would have to obtain statements in writing, and there would be correspondence. That seemed to him quite unnecessary when they had got on the spot an authority representative of the whole county capable, of dealing with the question. It might be said that this would be an interference with tin; powers of the Education Department in their control over the schools, but he did not think that could be suggested as a practical objection. He appealed to the President of the Local Government Board to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 3, line 35, to leave out from the word "determined" to the end of the Clause, and insert the words "by the County Council"—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There are two alternatives in this Amendment, one relating to the Education Department and the other to the Local Government Board. I think that on consideration my hon. Friend will see, and the House will see, that a question affecting the educational interests of the whole country and regulating the use of the schools and difficult questions between the managers and the public will be far better guarded and managed by the Education Department. If I were disposed to accept the Amendment, which I am not, I should feel bound by a spirit of honourable understanding at which we arrived earlier in the evening as to certain modifications in the use of the schools, the understanding that the Education Department would issue regulations which would make the education of the children the primary object. So far, therefore, as that part of the Amendment is concerned, I cannot accept it. Rut so far as the other part is concerned, I am delighted at any proposal to relieve the Local Government Board. That Board is being weighted very heavily by this Bill. We have no desire to undertake this duty, and if the House considers the work can be better discharged by the County Councils, or more economically, I should not oppose the proposal. But I must take my stand upon the Education Department being the authority with regard to the use of the schools. Perhaps the Committee may think that the County Council would be preferable to the Local Government Board—[Cries of "No!"] but the main questions to be decided are education questions, and upon that we must take our stand.

MR. L. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said, he had an Amendment practically to the same effect as the one now moved, but owing to the answer given by the Government earlier in the evening he did not intend to move it himself. But he supposed the right hon. Gentleman, in making his statement, now intended to alter somewhat the wording of Subsection 3—namely, If any question arises under this section as to what is reasonable or suitable, it may be determined, in the case of a school house, by the Education Department, and in any other ease by the Local Government Board. That made the Department a Court of Appeal. Ho understood the Vice-President in the earlier part of the evening to say that he was willing to frame regulations for the whole country.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he thought he could give a strong reason why the Government should not give way in regard to one part of the clause. The words "any local rate" were not limited to the rates of the parish in which the meeting took place. Asylums and other buildings would be included, and a great number of the rooms were either the property of the County Council or were under the control of the County Council. It seemed to him, therefore, that the Local Government Board would be the right body to be the appeal-authority in the matter.

* MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

said, there was another reason for not accepting the Amendment, and that was that the County Council was not a continuous body. The questions would have to be answered at very short notice, and whereas a Department like the Local Government Board could give an answer in a few days, the County Council might not be sitting for weeks.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, that by adopting County Councils they would get a variety of decisions, whereas by adopting the Local Government Board they would get uniformity.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, he would suggest the insertion of the following words:— If any question arises under this section as to what is reasonable or suitable, it may be determined in the case of the schoolhouse by rules to be framed under this Act for that purpose by the Education Department, and in any other case by the Local Government Board. He thought those words would ensure uniformity of practice.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No, Sir; I cannot accept that. I was anxious not to undertake fresh responsibility on behalf of the Local Government Board, but reasons have been given as to the desirability of the Local Government Board undertaking that duty, and it is, therefore, my duty to accept it, and not to shrink from any responsibility which the House puts upon us. Therefore, under these circumstances, I adhere to the clause as it stands. I should be glad if we may now be allowed to make progress with the Bill.

MR. W. LONG

said, he was very glad to hear the decision of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought it was most important—perhaps rather more important than the right hon. Gentleman thought— that this matter should be left to the Local Government Board.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.) moved the following Amendment:— In page 3, line 37, after "Board," add,— "Provided that no meeting shall be held in any premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

He said, he took it for granted that the House would accept it, and he would not, therefore, waste time.

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

SIR C. W. DILKE

asked if the Amendment was in Order, as the clause dealt with the use of a schoolroom.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Amendment ought to be brought up on another clause.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Powers and Duties of Parish Councils and Parish Meetings.

Clause 5 (Parish Council to appoint Overseers.)

On the Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 3, line 40, after "appointing," to insert "and revoking the appointment of.

SIR C. W. DILKE moved— In page 4, line 5, after Sub-section (1) to insert—"(2) Every person, male or female, married or single, shall be qualified to be an Overseer or an Assistant Overseer for a rural parish, unless disqualified by this or any oilier Act.

He said, the words "substantial householder" had been held to exclude the agricultural labourer, but he thought it would be the wish of the Committee that an agricultural labourer should be as capable of being an Overseer or an Assistant Overseer. He did not mind much about the form his Amendment should take, and he would substitute other words if thought desirable.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 5, after Sub-section (1) to insert—"(2) Every person, male or female, married or single, shall He qualified to be an Overseer or Assistant Overseer for a rural parish, unless disqualified by this or any other Act."—(Sr C. W. Dilke.)

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

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, He hoped the words would not be agreed to, without qualification at all events. It might be desirable to alter the qualification of a substantial householder by providing that an agricultural labourer, if qualified by education, should be qualified to accept it, and he had no objection to that, but he thought that, at any rate, the Overseer ought to be a householder, and have a connection with the parish. The office was surely one that was scarcely suitable for a female.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

They are held to be qualified now.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not know of any eases.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the right hon. Gentleman would find that in Black-stone's time they existed, and he had seen cases alluded to in his own time. Those who hold office should not be eon-fined to the parish. There was an Act of Parliament of the present reign by which persons were allowed to be chosen who were not in the parish. They could not strictly limit it to persons in the parish. Perhaps he would do well if he withdrew the words he had proposed, and move the following instead:— No person otherwise entitled should be incapable of being elected an Overseer or Assistant Overseer by reason that he or she is not a substantial person.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that we cannot take the Amendment as it stands. I myself was rather inclined to the view that the choice should be eon-fined to the parochial elector or persons qualified to be Councillor. I do not think we can admit the principle that anyone from anywhere can be chosen as Overseer. I would rather have the words that my right hon. Friend has just read, but they are presented to us rather suddenly, and I should like time to consider them. It is not essential to insert them in this part of the Bill, I think. If my right hon. Friend will put the Amendment down it shall be considered; I do not want either to accept it or reject it now. Of course, with regard to the point of a woman holding office, that is the law, and therefore there is not much in that part of the question. With reference to the words "substantial householder," "substantial" is a very difficult word to define. I hope my right hon. Friend will not press it at this stage of the Bill. I could not accept his Amendment as it is down on the Paper, because it would be too wide.

SIR C. W. DILKE

If the right hon. Gentleman will give a promise that ho himself will deal with the question of allowing an agricultural labourer to be an Overseer, if he is capable of being so, I will leave the matter in his hands. Personally, I should be ready to accept an Amendment getting rid of the word "substantial," or an Amendment which he shadowed forth, giving the power of being elected Overseer to any person who was capable of being elected a member of the Parish Council. I should be quite willing if my right hon. Friend would deal with the matter in one or other of these two senses later on in Committee or on Report.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make a rash promise. It is essential that persons who are to be Overseers or Assistant Overseers should be educationally qualified for the duties they have to perform. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will take time to consider this matter.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will bring up a clause dealing with the qualification of Overseers.

SIR C. W. DILKE

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved, in page 4, line 8, to leave out "shall," and insert "may." The reason for that is that the Bill as originally drawn would make it compulsory in every case to appoint an additional Overseer, and I am informed that in some cases it is not desirable. Therefore, I propose to give option in the matter.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 8, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "may."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

Would it prevent Churchwardens from being appointed Overseers? [Mr. H. H. Fowler: No.] He would not take the responsibility of opposing this Amendment; but it rather strengthened the case on Clause 13 for having a stronger charity clause, because the effect of the Amendment would be to weaken Clause 13. They had under Clause 13 but a shadow of popular control of parochial charities, and the effect of the Amendment might be to reduce the number of elected Trustees of charities. He admitted, however, that the point was a very obscure one.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My right hon. Friend forgets the discretion in the Council. I think we ought to trust the Council with the option; but I have put down some Amendments to Clause 13 dealing with the appointment of Overseers in the parishes. All I propose to do is to provide that they shall have the option. They will then do it with their eyes open.

Question put, and negatived.

Word "may" inserted.

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

*SIR F. S. POWELL moved— In page 4, line 10, to leave out from the word "references" to the word "shall," in line 11, and insert the words "to Churchwardens and Overseers in the Poor Laws Acts, and in any other Act where the references relate to the relief of the poor, to the collection or distribution of the poor late, or to any power, duty, or liability transferred to the Parish Council under this Act. He said, this Amendment was not moved in the form in which it stood in his name on the Paper; but his object in setting it forth as it stood on the Paper was to make clear the object he had in view. He did not propose the Amendment for the purpose of defeating the intention of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He had given his personal assent to the Bill on the Second Reading, and ho would not be a party to anything that might tend to defeat it. But the Bill introduced legislation by reference to an unnecessary extent. That was a most injurious form of legislation, making it necessary that one should carry about what he would call a library of statutes, which must be confusing to those who would have the conduct of proceedings under this Bill, and embarrassing to those who would have the administration under their sanction. But if legislation by reference was bad, legislation in the dark was still worse. He did not think that House itself knew what Acts were included in the references. They were legislating in the dark. And, if that were so, what would be the position of those who were to administer the Act? Many of those who would be called upon to carry out the Act would be unable to obtain legal assistance, and if the Bill remained as it was it must cause the greatest embarrassment. People now might understand the law as regarded Churchwardens and Overseers; but what would be the position 50 years hence? He had secured the assistance of good legal advice in this matter, and had enumerated in his Amendment what he believed to be the duties that were now discharged by Churchwardens and Overseers. The Committee would pardon him if he referred to Clause 8. It gave certain powers, and these would be set out in the Act. His desire was that the clauses in the Bill should be complete, and they could be made complete by giving the whole of the powers. He had enumerated the duties referred to as well as he could; if he had not enumerated them all that could be remedied; there was ample time to complete the enumeration. His desire was to improve a Bill which he valued, and wished to see passed; and if there was any doubt in the matter they should try and make it perfectly clear what was the law that was to be administered. He did not know that he was called upon to go through the enumeration; but, if examined, he believed it would be found reasonably and fairly complete, and if there was any deficiency he was quite ready to supply it. Ho hoped the Committee would accept his apology for detaining them, and he begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 10, to leave out from the word "references," to the word "shall," in line 11, and insert the words "to the Churchwardens and Overseers in the Poor Laws Acts, and in any other Act where the references relate to the relief of the poor, to the collection or distribution of the poor rate, or to any power, duty, or liability transferred to the Parish Council under this Act."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would be sorry if they were legislating in the dark; but his objection to the Amendment was that if they adopted it they would be legislating in the dark. As he had explained to the House on the Second Reading, they were dealing with the Churchwarden as a secular officer, and his hon. Friend knew that, besides the Act relating to the Poor Law, there was a large number of Allotment Enclosure Acts, in which the Churchwarden was regarded in a two-fold capacity—as a secular officer and as an ecclesiastical officer. So far as the ecclesiastical power went, this Bill did not touch it. It was left outside the scope of the Bill; but they recognised that a Churchwarden might not be a member of the Church of England—ho might be a Jew, a Nonconformist, or a man of no belief at all. They denuded him of all power except ecclesiastical power, and the Act would be construed as referring to him as a civil officer. In him, jointly with the Overseer, had been vested a large amount of parish property, and the Bill said that whenever the two represented the civil affairs of the parish, the Overseer, and he only, was to be treated as the representative of the parish, for the purpose of having vested in him the secular powers of the Churchwarden. He could not accept this Amendment, which would be directly in opposition to the principle of the Bill, which was that, so far as this provision went, the Churchwarden should cease to be a secular officer. He hoped the explanation he had made would be broad enough and satisfactory enough for his hon. Friend.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, ho did not think anyone would dispute that since the beginning of the discussion on this Bill in Committee they on his (the Opposition) side had done what they could to enable every Parish Authority to understand what powers were being conferred upon it. There was nothing more important, if they wore going to confer upon parishes the power of governing themselves, than that the parishes should understand the nature and extent of the powers they were to exercise and what powers were actually conferred upon them. He was afraid that, so far as they had gone, the Bill under consideration conferred on the parishes a complex system, which it would be very difficult for Parish Councillors to work or understand, without some guidance which was not now provided. His right hon. Friend said he did not want to legislate in the dark. That was the position of his hon. Friend who had moved the Amendment. Their object was to legislate in the light, and so let the parishioners have what clear, well-defined, expressed powers they were to have. That was the object of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman said there were certain powers under the Allotments and other Acts——

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not powers. This clause does not deal with powers.

* MR. E. STANHOPE

Well, legal rights.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, there were certain rights—perhaps, that was the word he should use—which would not be transferred by the Amendment. Well, he was sure his right hon. Friend would amend his Amendment in any way that might meet the difficulty. Indeed, as far as He (Mr. Stanhope) was concerned, he would urge him to accept any Amendment to the Amendment that would render clear the power transferred to the Parish Councils. If they loft the matter as it was, they ran a very grave risk. The Bill was to be construed as referring to Overseers. They left it to the Parish Council, in fact, to decide whether any powers under the Acts were transferred to them or not. That was not the way to deal with the question. The scheme was intricate and far-reaching. The men who were to constitute the Parish Councils would be drawn from the ranks of the agricultural labourers—men who were not accustomed to construing Acts of Parliament—and it was ridiculous to say that they should be asked to say whether certain powers were assigned to them. The more reasonable way would be to try and find what powers they were going to transfer to these Councils. If they had adopted the proposal as it stood the Bill must lead to misconception, to exaggerated expectations. Anyone who read the Bill would arrive at that conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman said certain powers were to be transferred and also certain rights.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No. This clause has nothing to do with the transfer of powers. That is dealt with in Clause 6.

MR. E. STANHOPE

Rights?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This deals with the property held by the Overseers. If you wish to deal with the transfer of powers, that is another matter; but this is a question that a layman can understand.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, whatever the clause did, it was important that its effect should be made clear. What ho urged upon the right hon. Gentleman was that he should distinctly and plainly express in the Bill what it was that ho was going to give to the Parish Councils. That should be explained in a way that would not be open to misconception. If that were not done, he was certain that there would arise a fruitful source of misconception, while he was afraid the Bill would not accomplish the objects for which it was intended.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

said, the Mover of the Amendment had given a strong argument in favour of the clause as it stood. Ho had stated that in the future a great many new duties might be imposed on the Churchwardens and Overseers. Surely it was desirable that all secular powers given under future Acts should be under the control of the Parish Councils. The idea was that the Parish Councils were to take the place of the Churchwardens in regard to secular matters.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he would suggest a way out of the difficulty—namely, that the Acts referred to should be sot out in a Schedule. After the words "references in any Act," they should add "specified in the third Schedule of this Act." There would be no difficulty in specifying the Acts. With the assistance of the experts in his De- partment who were familiar with them the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be able to lay his hands on the statutes, with little trouble.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, he considered the sub-section most unhappily framed. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman opposite to-argue that he was only dealing here with a reference to powers, these powers being conferred in a subsequent section, and that the clause itself only dealt with property. If that were so, Sub-section (b) was unhappily framed and was far too large in its wording, because it spoke of references in any Act to the Churchwardens and Overseers. That sub-section would be unnecessary if a few words were introduced into Sub-section (c). Sub-section (b), to his mind, involved dealing with matters other than property, though what he could not imagine. There were no words in it to show that it referred to property which was specifically dealt with in the next sub-section. There were a great many Acts in which Churchwardens and Overseers were dealt with conjointly, and in each one they would have to consider whether it came within-this sub-section.

* MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)

said, the moaning and importance of the sub-section was much exaggerated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. To him it appeared to be merely consequential in its meaning and effect. The rights would remain what they were before, but instead of being vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers they would be vested in the Overseers, including amongst their number persons appointed in place of the former Churchwardens. As everything ecclesiastical was to be excluded from their functions he could not see what hon. Gentlemen were afraid of.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side seemed to think that the Amendment was put forward exclusively in the interest of the Church, but he did not look upon it in that light. Their first object was to make the enactment clear. It must be remembered that they were passing an Act which would have to be interpreted not by skilled lawyers, but by simple Parish Councillors, who might be agri- cultural labourers, or persons who had not had opportunities of knowing much outside their own parishes. And yet they found that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and his supporters behind him were at variance as to the meaning of the section. Besides, as regarded the Church the clause was not fair. It would put the burden of showing what matters related to the Church, and what did not, on the representatives of the Church. This was hard, seeing that they were dealing with a case in which secular and Church matters had been mixed up for a thousand years. Surely the Local Government Board, with its experience and knowledge, ought to he able to specify the duties in respect of which the Churchwardens were to be abolished. The clause, which seemed to him to have been put together in a hurried manner, might be interpreted in a sense different to what hon. Members desired.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was clear that the intentions of hon. Members opposite would not be the intentions of the Government. On that point the Committee, and the Committee alone, must be the judge. The intention of the Government was this—that every power which was vested in the quasi Corporation of Churchwardens and Overseers through the long course of English legislation, if that power did not refer to the affairs of the Church, should cease to be vested in the Churchwardens, and should only be held in the future by the Overseers, who would be the representatives and appointees of the parish. That was what they meant. They meant to terminate, and they thought this was the best way to terminate, the secular existence of the Churchwardens. They said— Wherever there is in an Act of Parliament reference to Churchwardens and Overseers, it shall be read as referring to Overseers only. The Government understood what they meant, and they thought they understood what hon. Gentlemen opposite meant. The words of the clause were vital and integral for carrying out the intention of the Government and for securing legal safety in future.

SIR E. WEBSTER

said, he could not allow the speech of the right hon. Gentleman or the Amendment to pass without a word of protest. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman meant—as he always did mean—to state his views clearly to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had stated now in distinct terms that in this sub-section he meant that every power which by previous legislation was vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers should be transferred from the Churchwardens.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Nothing about transference whatever.

SIR R. WEBSTER

It is a question of a word.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

In arguing legal points you must proceed by degrees. We are laying the foundation of transference. We say that in future where any Act of Parliament uses the words Overseers and Churchwardens they shall mean the Overseers.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the right hon. Gentleman spoke very positively in this matter. He (Sir R. Webster) was not allowed to speak so positively, although ho had some right to express an opinion as a lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman, who, no doubt, was fortified with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, said most positively that there was no transfer in this sub-section. What was meant if there was not a transference? There were Enclosure Acts and Allotment Acts in which there were references to Churchwardens and Overseers, and those references must either be the vesting of property or the conferring of duties on the Churchwardens and Overseers. The right hon. Gentleman had said, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire had spoken of these matters, that this might be germane to the discussion of Clause 6 or a later clause, but that it was not germane to this particular section. The right hon. Gentleman said that this clause transferred no rights or powers. But it seemed to him (Sir R. Webster) in its general terms to cover the duties and obligations of Churchwardens and Overseers contained in earlier Acts which were to be considered as devolving in the future on the Overseers alone. That would appear to be re-enacting de novo the powers of the bodies who would take the place of the Churchwardens and Overseers. He would appeal to any lawyer whether the effect of the clause was not to re-enact these powers. The right hon. Gentleman said he desired that the Churchwardens should cease to be civil officers. That might or might not be a good thing to do, but it should not be done by referring wholesale to Acts of Parliament which were not present to the mind of the Committee at the moment, and as to the desirability of so dealing with they had not the means of forming a judgment. He (Sir R. Webster) and his friends desired to make this a workable Bill. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not know whether the gentleman who made that observation was under the Chairman's control, but certainly anyone who had listened to the discussion during the past few days must know that the criticisms which had been offered from that (the Opposition) side had been fair and just, so much so that they had led to the acceptance of Amendments by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. They all desired that the Bill should be passed in a workable shape, so that there should be good and effective Parish Councils, and that simple laymen could interpret the measure. The words of the section, as they at present stood, were so general and so vague in their character that if they passed they would give rise to difficulty. If any powers and duties were to be transferred from the Churchwardens to the Overseers by this clause, the right hon. Gentleman ought to state clearly and distinctly the nature of those powers and duties. If the Government desired to avoid litigation, the effect of the section should be set forth affirmatively. Ho submitted that at present it was singularly vague. The hon. Baronet who had moved the Amendment had referred to "Poor Law Acts," and that, no doubt, was a good expression, but should not "Allotments Acts" be added, and so on? In a case of this kind, if general words were used they should either be careful what the general words were, or else set forth clearly in a sub-section the class of references they wished to be effected by the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman was right in saying that the clause meant nothing, and if they were satisfied that that was the case, they would not desire to prolong the discussion; but so long as they thought that the section meant the transference of duties they had a right to know what those duties were.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 73.—(Division List, No. 338.)

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, that in accordance with the suggestion he made a quarter of an hour ago ho proposed to move after the word "shall," in line 11, to insert, "as specified in the Schedule to this Act and." It had been often said that when they meant nothing they should say nothing. Well, this clause practically meant nothing, therefore it should say nothing. It should either be left out, or the Government should specify what it meant. He moved this Amendment to require the draftsman to set out the Acts referred to.

THE CHAIRMAN

Will the hon. Member bring up the Schedule?

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

I am prepared to bring it up.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment without the Schedule is out of Order. The next Amendment is out of Order.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he desired to move an Amendment— In line 14, to leave out from "parish," to "shall," in line 16, and insert "under the Act entitled 'an Act to amend the Laws for the Relief of the Poor, 1819.' He was aware that in the laws for the relief of the poor, 1819, there was no such short title as "The Poor Relief Act, 1819," but as that title was already used in the Bill he thought it better to adopt it. On the Second Reading the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler), speaking of Clause 5, said— In fact, this clause is to carry out an Act which was passed in 1819. The Act of 1819 was one by which the Overseers and Churchwardens were made a quasi Corporation to receive certain powers to acquire and hold property for Poor Law purposes. The Amendment, if adopted, would make the clause carry out the intention which the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading spoke of as the intention of the Government in inserting it.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 15, to leave out from the word "parish," to the word "shall," in line 16, and insert the words "under the Act entitled 'An Act to amend the Laws for the Relief of the Poor, 1819.'"—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This Amendment would, if adopted, practically restrict, if not reverse, what the Committee has just resolved. We propose to transfer all property now vested in the quasi Corporation of the Churchwardens and Overseers. The hon. Member proposes to confine the transfer simply to the property vested under the Act of 1819. That Act simply laid the foundation, and we do not propose that the Bill should be confined simply to the property acquired under that Act. We say— All property vested either in Overseers or in the Churchwardens and Overseers of a rural parish other than property connected with the affairs of the Church shall, vest in the Parish Council. The hon. Member proposes to restrict that provision. I see no reason why it should be restricted. If it were restricted it would be in direct opposition to our intention. Our intention is to vest everything; we wish to include every description of property vested in the Overseers or Churchwardens and Overseers other than that which is connected with the affairs of the Church, or, in other words, all the property vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers in so far as they are secular officers.

* MR. W. LONG

said, it was not the case that his hon. Friend (MR. Grant Lawson) meant to limit the powers that were to vest in the Parish Council. He was merely endeavouring to make the phraseology of the Bill clear. He (Mr. Long) felt that this was not the best method of doing so. The proposal he liked best was one which the Chairman had ruled to be inadmissible—namely, that the powers should be set out in a Schedule. What was needed was that the powers it was proposed to transferor impose on the Parish Council should be specified clearly and distinctly in the measure which conferred them. It ought not to be left in the least degree vague what were the powers transferred and what were those which remained. It was quite possible that the Act of 1819, al though it went a long way in the desired direction, did not include some of the powers which the Government wished to confer. He could not, however, understand what could be the objection of those who believed in this Bill and wanted it to be an effective measure to a proposal that it should specify distinctly what were to be the powers of the Parish Council under the clause. At present the whole thing was left doubtful and vague. He supposed the majority of the Parish Councillors would be laymen, and that they would not be able to interpret an Act of Parliament which was admitted by high authorities in that House to be vague and doubtful. He could not understand why there was any objection to making the clause clear and distinct, unless some hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House believed that under the present vagueness they would get more than if they specified plainly what were the powers that were to be given. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had indignantly denied that he had any intention of attacking or robbing the Church of England, and he (Mr. Long) was satisfied that he had no intention of the kind. No doubt the present Amendment would, if adopted, unduly limit the clause, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might in a Schedule specify the various Acts to which he intended to refer, so that any Parish Council, however untrained, would have nothing to do but take the Act of Parliament in their hands in order to realise at once what their rights and powers were. He would remind the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby), who appeared ready to answer him, that Parish Councils in the future would not enjoy the benefit of the advice of a Solicitor General, or even of any legal adviser at all—at least, he hoped they would not—but would have to be content with their own unaided knowledge. It was most important, therefore, that when the measure left the House it should be so simple and distinct in its phraseology that every Parish Councillor should be able to understand it, and put it into effect without doubt or difficulty.

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (SIR J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said, the object of the Government was to put their intentions into the simplest language. Sub-section (c) had absolutely nothing to do with the powers to be conferred. Whether Parish Councils understood the sub-section or not was a comparatively small matter, because it dealt with a purely legal question with which they were in no way concerned, and upon which their action would in no way depend. By "the legal interest in all property," the Government meant what they said. They did not mean property under a particular Act, and they did not think it would be at all conducive to clearness that they should attempt to schedule all the Acts. They might, if they made such an attempt, leave one Act out, and thus impair the efficiency of the clause. All property whatever, wherever it was, now vested in the Overseers or Churchwardens and Overseers of a rural parish, other than property connected with the affairs of the Church, was to vest in the Parish Council. He was not prepared to say what were all the Acts which had vested property in the Overseers or Churchwardens, but, whatever they were, the Government intended to include them all. Why, then, have a Schedule? If any of the Acts were accidentally left out of a Schedule the intention of the Government would not be carried out. The sub-section further provided that— 'all persons concerned shall make or concur in making such transfers, if any, as are requisite for giving effect to this enactment. The Government were getting rid of the Overseers and Churchwardens as official representatives of the parish, except so far as Church affairs were concerned, and it was, therefore, right that they should get out of them any legal estate or interest now vested in them. The sub-section was altogether a very proper one. There were certain things, such, for instance, as Consols or the Stocks of different Railway Companies, the legal interest in which could not be handed over otherwise than by transfer. It was difficult for him to understand where the supposed danger would arise. It appeared to him that the language was as plain and clear as possible. The Government, intending as they did to include all the cases that could possibly arise, did not choose to run the risk of trying to schedule all the Acts for fear of omitting some of them. SIR R. WEBSTER said, he was very glad that the appeal he had made to the Government had given the Committee the honour of the presence of the Solicitor General during the last 10 minutes. At the same time, after listening to the hon. and learned Gentleman's interesting speech, he could not help asking himself whether, supposing the Solicitor General had been on a Parish Council, and had been asked by one of the farmers for an explanation of the sub-section and had delivered the speech to which the Committee had just listened, the members of the Council would have been much wiser than they were before. He (Sir R. Webster) had never heard from any Law Officer, certainly not from one of the hon. and learned Gentleman's distinction, such a confession of incapacity on the part of a Government as the hon. and learned Gentleman had made. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the Government had not specified the enactments because they were afraid to leave out one, or, in other words, because they could not find out for themselves what wore the Acts. The Solicitor General must feel the difficulty in which ho had placed the Government by that declaration. These were not clear and distinct words in themselves. Who was to decide what was the property vested in the Overseers and Churchwardens? The unfortunate Parish Councillor, who would have no legal assistance whatever. It was perfectly obvious that when the sub-section came to be worked out there must be minute and accurate examination into the question of what were the Acts of Parliament by which property had become vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers. The Solicitor General had said that all persons concerned must concur in making the transfers. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that this was to be done without legal advice? The answer was obvious. No Government ought to propose a clause of this kind unless they were prepared to tell the Committee at least what was the class of enactments to which they referred. Another argument which he felt bound to notice was one put forward both by his hon. and learned Friend and by the President of the Local Government Board, and it was that if this Amendment were carried it would practically amount to a reversal of the decision come to by the Committee on the last Amendment. But on the last Amendment they were told that these sub-sections had nothing to do one with the other. Surely the Government ought to defend its action with a little more accuracy. On the Second Reading the President of the Local Government Board said that the clause was necessary to carry out an Act passed in 1819. If the Government had made an examination which showed that, they ought also to have made an examination to find out what other Acts must be given effect to by means of the clause. They were now asked to assent in general language to the transfer to the Parish Councils of the legal estate vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers, other than the property of the Church, and therefore the parish representatives would have to search the Statute Book in order to find what property was to he so vested. The statutes could not he numbered in hundreds, and all he could say was that if the Statute Hook was in such a state of chaos as the speech of his hon. and learned Friend would lead them to believe then it was the duty of the Government to make the examination. It would not, he believed, be a difficult thing to make this legislation easy by enumerating the Acts, and he could not help feeling that the words had been designedly left vague to indicate to the supporters of the Government that they might possibly get more than was promised in the perfectly candid statement of the President of the Local Government Board. The unfortunate Parish Council would have to decide what the words meant, and Heaven help them, in the absence of the Solicitor General. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL: It does not matter.] Could it be said that it did not matter whether or not the Council knew what property was vested in them? Were they to lot farms go out of cultivation and houses to get into bad repair because of the vagueness of the words used in the Act? Let the simple-minded people whom hon. Members opposite were so anxious to endow with the power of managing their own affairs at least have an Act of Parliament which they could understand. Such speeches as they had heard from the Solicitor General only left them worse off in the matter of understanding than before they were delivered.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, that under the section the property of a parish was divided into two classes, that which belonged to "the affairs of the Church" and that which did not. Where were they to find any definition of the words "property which belongs to the affairs of the Church"? Could the Solicitor General give them one? It might he that an ecclesiastical charity under this section would have to be transferred. The Treasury Bench ought to define what they meant by the "affairs of the Church," otherwise confusion would certainly arise. Suppose there was an endowment for a clerk. Was that an affair of the Church? or for a, bell-ringer or a sexton? Would that be an affair of the Church?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

These things are expressly provided for in the Amendments as to ecclesiastical charities.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

, continued, that ecclesiastical charities were not mentioned in the section. Would the right hon. Gentleman promise a clearer definition of the words "connected with the affairs of the Church"?

* MR.LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

said, that if these words remained undefined, and the Parish Council proceeded to sell any property under Clause 9, Sub-section 2 (should those provisions be eventually incorporated in the Bill), whenever there was an examination of title on the conveyance, counsel would have to apply to the Courts for an interpretation of the sub-section. The words were undoubtedly ambiguous, and it did seem desirable that instead of making numerous applications to the Court necessary the Law Officers of the Crown should definitely settle the point and make the interpretation clear in the Bill itself.

* MR. TOMLINSON

said, that looking at the clause from a conveyancing point of view, it did Seem an extraordinarily retrograde proposal. In recent years great efforts had been made to simplify the law of conveyancing by striking out general words, and yet general words of the vaguest possible character were inserted in this sub-section and would lead to great difficulty, in the manner the hon. Member for Salford had suggested. He could quite understand that the President of the Local Government Board had no desire to injure the Church.

The CHAIRMAN

Order, order! This discussion is rather straying away from the Amendment.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, his object was to get the property to be transferred strictly defined in the Act, because the use of general words would place the Church in a very difficult position. They would have to find out what really related to the affairs of the Church. Moreover, under the sub-section the Parish Council would be entitled to say that every kind of property in the parish which Wits vested in either the Churchwardens or Overseers primâ facie belonged to them, and the burden would be unfairly thrown on those who were interested in maintaining the property of the Church of proving the right of the Church to the property it claimed. Again, did the Government think the Parish Council was the proper body to be trustees of all kinds of property in all cases? It might be a very divided body, and totally unfit to administer with benefit to the parish certain classes of property.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The clause simply deals with property vested either in the Overseers or in the Churchwardens and Overseers. It is property already vested in elected persons who are changed annually. The Government propose to substitute for those elected persons another elected body, the Parish Council, who will be elected by the same constituency as the Churchwardens, the Overseers being nominated by the Justices. There is no extension of the sub-section of the clause beyond property that is now vested in the Overseers or Churchwardens and Overseers.

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

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have entirely forgotten the fact that the Churchwardens are not elected. In a great majority of the rural parishes they are partly elected and partly nominated—one being nominated by the incumbent, and the other being elected by the Vestry. Further, Churchwardens are primarily, at any rate, Church officers, and it appears to me that the presumption of the clause ought to be in precisely an opposite direction to that in which it has been framed by the Government. The clause ought, in all fairness, to presume that property is vested in the Churchwardens as Church officers rather than as lay officers, unless the contrary is shown.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The property vested in Churchwardens and Overseers is dealt with.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

Yes; but I can quote from an old trust deed showing that 150 or 200 years ago property was vested in Churchwardens and Overseers, mainly because the Churchwardens were Church officers, and this was frequently done by persons who left property for the benefit of the poor. I am disposed to suggest that all property vested in Churchwardens should be presumed to be vested in them as Church officers. Of course, anything vested in them as lay officers, or any duty imposed on them, might properly be transferred to the Parish Council. I therefore am inclined to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan, which will be reached presently, and which approaches the question with the presumption I have indicated.

MR. BRODIE HOARE (Hampstead)

said, the Solicitor General had kindly told them the words of the section were perfectly simple. Would he answer this conundrum? What is to be done with property vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers to be administered only subject to the approval of the rector? He was aware of the existence of such charities.

* MR. TALBOT

said, the Amendment was a very important one, and justified full discussion. Surely it could not be seriously intended that property vested by gift or bequest during the last few years in the Churchwardens and Overseers was to be passed over to the Parish Council, although it could be shown that it was clearly intended to remain in the hands of persons connected with the Church. It was clear that there was some difference between the words of this clause and the words of the subsequent clause, in which ecclesiastical charities were accepted. He was afraid that the obscurity was intended to hide some distinction, and he doubted whether classes of property other than those now admitted as included were intended to be brought within the purview of the section. If these words were transferred from Clause 6 to this clause it would make the matter quite clear. After the alarming speech of the Solicitor General they wanted to know where they were. He asked the Government to give a satisfactory definition in the Schedule.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the next Amendment on the Paper which was in his name was intended simply to make it clear that the property to be transferred was that vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers jointly.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 15, to leave out the word "and," and insert the words "conjointly with the."—(MR. H. Hothouse.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am advised that the word "and" is the proper word. It is a statutory phrase.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

And it will have no other meaning.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

So I am advised.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

Then I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he wished to move the insertion after "Church," "or of any ecclesiastical charity."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It may save time if I state that, as it is necessary that Clauses 5 and 6 should be in harmony, I am prepared to move to insert, instead of the words standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman, these words—" or held for an ecclesiastical charity."

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 16, after the word "Church," to insert the words "or held for an ecclesiastical charity."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, he had proposed to move the addition of the following words at the end of the clause:— The right to assemble and discuss and pass resolutions expressive of opinion upon the affairs of the parish, or upon matters in which the inhabitants of the parish have an interest now vested in the Vestry, shall (except so far as relates to the affairs of the Church) be transferred to and vest in the parish meeting. The addition was one which he believed met with general approval in all parts of the House, but it would be unnecessary to move it, as the Government proposed to provide in the Schedule that parish meetings should be at liberty to discuss parish affairs and pass resolutions thereon. What was desired was to make the meeting as far as possible a parish Parliament.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We have no doubt that the parish meeting should have these powers, and as the hon. Member thinks there is some doubt as to whether the clause gives them, we will make the necessary provision in the Schedule. I have already given notice of the words to be added.

MR. DODD

I do not move then.

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

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

The Committee will recollect we were told that from the beginning to the end of the Bill it was not desired to interfere with the affairs of the Church. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said so in very plain terms, and we accepted what he said in perfect good faith. I am the very last to attempt to charge the right hon. Gentleman, directly or indirectly, that he had departed from that understanding; but we feel that this clause is so very vague in terms, that it leaves ns as badly off as we were before. It has been said that nothing is transferred by this clause, but that cannot be possibly contended by anyone who will look at the clause. One of the sub-sections of the clause lays it down that references in another Act to certain persons shall mean references to other persons in this Bill, that references to A in one Act shall moan references to B in this Act. Nobody can doubt that that means an absolute transfer of property, and therefore this clause will have an effect that the right hon. Gentleman has not realised, or at least has not explained to the Committee. That there is vagueness no one will deny; and I say that any vagueness of this description is, first of all, cruel to the Church. You may not mean to injure the Church; but if you want to do it why do you not say so plainly? You certainly leave the Church in a worse position after the Bill is passed. I say that nothing can be more unkind than by vague references to leave the Church in uncertainty as to what powers are to be transferred from it to the Parish Councils; and it is also unfair to the Parish Councils, who ought to be clearly informed as to what powers they are to have. I feel that 1 cannot allow the clause to pass without making this final protest against what I believe will lead to quarrels in the country districts, and will have an effect very different from that which the Government desires and we wish to help them to attain.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 91.—(Division List, No. 339.)

Clause 6 (Transfer of certain powers of Vestry and other authorities to Parish Councils.)

SIR R. PAGET moved— In page 4, line 24, after "except," to insert "the power to order owners to be rated instead of occupiers under 'The Poor Bate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' Section 4, which power shall cease and determine as from the passing of this Act.

The Committee were aware that under the Act of 1869 the Vestry had the power to order that any owner should be compelled to be rated in place of the occupier. He desired by his Amendment to remove from the Vestry the power of so compulsorily ordering that the owners should be rated. He was aware of the difficulties connected with the matter of compounding. Ho had the honour of a seat in the House in 1867 when the matter was debated at considerable length, and he well remembered that the present Leader of the House had induced Mr. Disraeli to adopt an Amendment moved somewhat hastily by Mr. Huskisson, which had the effect of entirely abolishing the compound householder in the Reform Act of 1867. Difficulties shortly after arose; and within the next year they had had the spectacle of 6,000 ratepayers being processed for the non-payment of rates. The result was that in 1869 the compound householder, who had been destroyed in 1867 at the instance of the present Prime Minister, was again resuscitated, and the law of 1869 was the law in force at the present time. The object of compounding was to facilitate the collection of rates, and to prevent loss through the insolvency of tenants and their disappearance before the rates were paid. Under the Act of 1869, which was now in force, the Vestry had the power either to get the landlord to agree to pay the rates, and allow him 25 per cent, reduction, or to compel the landlord to pay the rates, in which case they were to allow him 15 per cent., and if he agreed to pay the rates on unoccupied houses to give him an additional 15 per cent., making together a reduction of 30 per cent, on the rates.

The CHAIRMAN (MR. ROBY,) Lancashire, Eccles

The last part of the hon. Baronet's Amendment is not in Order, and cannot be moved; therefore, the only question to be discussed is whether the power shall be left in the hands of the Vestry or transferred to the Parish Council.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the object of his Amendment was to resist the transfer of this power from the Vestry to the Parish Council. Large powers of taxation were conferred by the Bill, and those could be exercised properly only by the people who were subject to the taxation. Every voter should have some share, however small, of the increase in rates which would result from this Bill. The danger lay in the fact that the compound householder would have the power of voting without personally having to bear any of the burden of taxation. It was only in human nature to yield to the temptation of securing for nothing something that added to personal comfort or pleasure when that something could be secured merely by voting for it, somebody else being called upon to pay. If every voter paid his reasonable share of the increased rate all might be well, but, if not, the Opposition would be bound to try to introduce into the Bill every kind of possible precaution in order to prevent extravagant expenditure. It must be granted this Bill would lead to expenditure, and how, he asked, would the compound householder pay any share of that, direct or indirect, unless his rent was raised, and he could hardly think that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROBY)

I do not think the hon. Baronet is discussing the Amendment before the House, but is discussing whether the rates should be paid by the occupiers or not.

SIR R. PAGET

said, ho did so on the principle that the greater undoubtedly contained the less. His Amendment having been robbed of its greater part he had some difficulty in confining himself absolutely to the lesser part, which was not of so much importance as the Amendment as a whole. But his point was this—that the action of this Bill being to transfer from the Vestry to the Parish Council this power, it might come to pass in many places where, by general consent, at present, the occupier was rated and not the owner, that this transfer of power might result in an action on the part of the Parish Council, which would at once insist on the adoption of the Act, because under the Bill the power of the Vestry would be transferred to the Parish Council, and they would have to determine whether they would enforce the Act or not; and the enforcement of the Act would be immensely simplified. Under their new system of administration, they would find the Parish Council would be more ready to act and sweep away the existing agreement under which the occupier was now rated, and impose, against the will of the owner, an obligation that he should be rated and not the occupier. He thought that dealt with so much of his Amendment as remained on the Paper. He contended that the actual transfer would be in the direction of abolishing compounding in those parishes where it now existed, and what he desired was to plead for freedom on the part of the owners to do that which they thought best, and which the occupiers were well satisfied with. If the owners liked to sacrifice the 30 per cent, advantage they got; if they chose to compound, they could do so; but what he was contending against was this transfer of the power from the Vestry to the Parish Council. By the present form of his Amendment he was driven to limit himself to that particular contention. The compounding system—[Crics of "Order!"] He should have to ask hon. Gentlemen to be good enough to afford him a little more freedom of discussion, as this was a matter which went very much to the root of the Bill. As he had said the other night, it did not exist in Scotland, but it existed here, and he believed the system was one that caused great and grave inconvenience. If there were no compounding, if the people paid their own rates, they might easily give the voters generally this power, relying on their own personal interests to be careful in the administration; but if they were relieved from personal payment there would be a strong natural tendency to induce them, especially when the expenditure tended to their advantage, to increase the rates. He desired to move the Amendment so far as it was held to be in Order. He could only state he had been somewhat hampered by the conditions which had prevented him from placing before the Committee all the arguments he had desired to bring forward, but he thought he had said enough to show the tendency of the transfer from the Vestry to the parish would be a tendency which he would wish to avert; and though he would have wished to move the Amendment in its wider scope, he was driven to move it in its restricted form.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 24,after the word "except," to insert the words "the power to order owners to be rated instead of occupiers under 'The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' section 4."—(Sir R. Paget.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that in replying to his hon. Friend, he laboured under the same difficulty as the hon. Gentleman, for it was not easy to deal with an Amendment of this sort without dealing with the whole question of compounding, which, he might point out, was an economic arrangement for the convenience of the whole body of ratepayers, and to prevent the enormous loss that would otherwise accrue. If that loss was entailed it would involve the raising of the rate on the other ratepayers.

SIR R. PAGET

begged pardon for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but his contention was that if they abolished the system, they would gain the 30 per cent., which would more than compensate for any loss.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that was exactly the point where he differed from his hon. Friend. He thought the hon. Gentleman had made a mistake; it was nothing more nor less than discount which was given for prompt and certain payment, and it was only 15 per cent, and not 30, the other 15 per cent, being given to the owner when he consented to pay for the property when unoccupied. The principle of compounding householders was abolished in 1867, but it was unanimously restored in 1869. The object of the present Amendment was simply to keep alive the Vestry for one purpose only, and his hon. Friend thought that transferring this power to the Parish Council would predispose the Parish Council to extravagance. Well, he dared to differ; he thought the very small amount of power contained in this Bill was not likely to bring those feelings into play. He might state it was the opinion of the Local Government Board that the Act had been pretty generally put in force in the rural parishes—[An hon. MEMBER: Compulsorily.] Either compulsorily or voluntarily.

SIR R. PAGET

Have you any direct information on that subject?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had not; but whether it were so more or less, they could not, in setting up this new Parish Council, denude it of the ordinary secular powers of the Vestry, and therefore he was unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. He believed that the Bill of 1871 of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's (Mr. Goschen) transferred this power.

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

thought they were indebted to his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire (SIR R. Paget) for raising this question at the earliest possible moment, as it appeared to him the most vital question that could be raised on this Bill. He remembered the reinstatement of the compound householder in 1869 at the instance of the late Government, and through his right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square (Mr. Goschen), but the President of the Local Government Board was misinformed when he said the House was unanimous on the question. He well remembered spending a whole night in this House in Committee in vain attempts to oppose what he believed was one of the most mischievous changes ever made in this country on the question of the payment of rates, and therefore of social order. The matter was then mixed up with political questions, questions of the franchise, which undoubtedly prejudiced the mind of Parliament and the country generally, but those questions did not prejudice it now. When they arrived at the proper time ho hoped they should have a full and complete consideration of this question, and that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would approach it with an open mind, because he was convinced that it was equally in the interests of the occupiers as of the owners that this mischievous system of composition should be, as far as possible, got rid of. He knew it could not be got rid of altogether, but he contended the compulsory power, at any rate, ought to be got rid of as it now existed in the land, and his hon. Friend had very properly raised this question on this clause, because it was an important change that the power to compel owners to compound should be transferred from the Vestry to the Parish Council. The Parish Council was to be a body elected by the occu- piers, "One Man One Vote," whereas-the present Parish Vestry was, as hon. Gentlemen opposite had always assured them, a body elected by the plural vote, and therefore far less under the influence of the compound householder than the body proposed to be established by this-Bill. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that when they were transferring the secular powers of the Vestry to the Parish Council they must transfer this if it was to exist at all; but. he agreed with his hon. Friend that the change in the power of the body to effect these changes was a very considerable one, and he hoped the whole question would be considered at the proper time on this Bill. For the moment his hon. Friend had found that the pith of his Amendment was taken out of it by the ruling of the Chair, for the power to compel compounding could not be removed at the present stage of the Bill, and therefore he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the matter to a Division, but that it would be raised again, when they might be able to discuss the whole question whether compulsory compounding should be the law of the land.

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

would like to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and to the Committee, that though they could not by the ruling of the Chair discuss the entire question of compulsory compounding, it would be much better if the power, instead of being transferred from the Vestry to the Parish Council, were transferred from the Vestry to the parish meeting. The Vestry and the parish meeting were substantially the same, and the power of compulsory compounding was not so strictly an administrative power as it was a power for making, more or less, a law, and that was a thing that might appropriately, if not transferred to the Parish Council, come under the clauses which were to receive the approval of the parish meeting. He would not discuss the matter at length, but merely make the suggestion with the hope that the right hon. Gentleman opposite might take the matter into consideration.

MR. J. LOWTHER

did not quite gather that the right hon. Gentleman said it was outside the power of this House to deal with the question of the compounding householder. [An hon. Member: The Chairman ruled it.] Oh, no, the Chairman ruled nothing of the kind, the Chairman said it was on this Amendment outside the power of the Committee to go into the question of the existence of the compound householder as a whole, he did not understand him to prescribe what his ruling would be on a subsequent stage of their proceedings. He certainly thought it would be in the power of the Committee to repeal the Statute to which reference had been made. He apprehended that at some proper stage of their proceedings it would be in Order to move the repeal of the Act of 1869. But the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him to utterly fail to see what was the main point of his hon. Friend's contention. No doubt it was difficult in the form of the Amendment now assumed to go into the question in its entirety, but his hon. Friend gave very good ground to the Committee for observing great caution in transferring these powers, which from a financial point of view were considerable powers, and transferring them from a body which represented property to a body which did not. The Committee did not seem to realise the fact that they were asked to assent to a proposition that those who now pay their rates were to have the power transferred to them of saying they would not pay them any longer, but would compel others to pay the rates for them. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, and he only wished he shook it with more effect. The Solicitor General shook his head, and if it meant anything it was in the direction of assent, but he thought the Solicitor General was prepared to take refuge in silence. [Cries of "Order!"] Would any hon. Gentleman contradict him when he said that this Bill would enable those who now were bound to pay the rates themselves to turn round and compel other people to pay them for them? That was the effect of this Bill, and nothing more serious could well be included in any Act of Parliament. As to the compound householder, they had been reminded they could not deal with that question to-night, but he did not consider they were precluded from dealing with the subject before they concluded their labours. His impression was that a Motion for the repeal of the Act of 1869 would be in Order, or, if not, they should obtain from the House some power of dealing with the question in a comprehensive spirit. As he understood it, they would have the power later on, and lie hoped that when the House came to consider the question in its entirety it would deal with it. in a comprehensive manner. The deduction of 30 per cent., as the right hon. Gentleman very properly reminded them, covered houses that remained unoccupied, but what was that but a temptation to owners to purchase the worst class of property to evade their fair share of local liability. On no ground of public policy could this system be defended, but the most indefensible was that included in the proposition now before them, that they should hand over to those who now paid the rates the power to compel others to pay them for them.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, there was one point that had not been alluded to, but which had a material bearing upon the question whether they should not go. in the direction of this Amendment. As he understood the matter, the Parish Council would have only limited powers of rating. There would be many things they would like to do, and would do if they only had sufficient money, and there would be great temptation to go on spending money without looking at the ultimate cost. The consequence of spending money at that rate would be that sooner or later they would get to their limit and would not have carried out the works they desired; therefore, what could be better than constantly bringing before the constituent bodies, who wore the, people who did not pay rates, but had rates paid for them, the fact that if they went on spending the rates would rise to the high-water level allowed by the Bill. It appeared to him the consequence of not having any such restriction, or the means of reminding the constituent bodies, would be that they should have the same agitation as was now seen in London for the equalisation of rates as between the rich and poor parishes of a county. It appeared to him they could not be too careful in entrusting these powers to these bodies, and that there should be some means of reminding them of the responsibilities they were incurring.

SIR R. PAGET

Mr. Mellor, in your temporary absence, Sir, I was unable to get your distinct ruling on this matter. In view of the importance of this question, may I, on a point of Order, venture to ask that you would be good enough to inform me whether the Amendment is out of Order—[Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Baronet appeals to me on a point of Order, but I do not know what it is yet.

SIR R. PAGET

The point of Order is this, in your absence I was unable to get the advantage of your specific ruling.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand the point now. There is no appeal from the Deputy Chairman to myself.

SIR R. PAGET

There is no question of appeal at all; the point of Order was never delivered from the Chair. What I want to know is whether I should be justified in bringing up a new clause, or whether the proper method would be to move a section in the Schedule to repeal the Act with regard to compounding? I desire to know that, as it is a matter of considerable importance.

THE CHAIRMAN

The question put to me I can answer. In my opinion, this matter is outside the scope of the Bill.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

If that is so, I think this matter will require to be discussed a good deal more, Stress was laid on this question of compounding by many speakers. The right hon. Gentleman perfectly well knew it was one of the most important matters, in our point of view, connected with this measure. For my part, I can only say if there was not the interest of personal payment of rates on the part of the ratepayers I should care very little for any conceivable safeguard or check on the expenditure of the parish that could be devised. I believe the question of personal interest in the payment of the rates of the utmost importance in this matter, and I would infinitely sooner have that check on parochial expenditure than any limitation it is possible to put into the Act, or any limitation by reference to the Local Government Board. We were led to believe by the silence of Her Majesty's Government that it was perfectly possible to raise this question in Committee on this Bill, and now we are told —I hope it may not be a final ruling— by the Chairman that it is impossible for us to raise this question in Committee. I am bound to say I do not think Her Majesty's Government have dealt fairly with the Committee. There is no question in this Bill of such extreme importance as that initiated by the hon. Member for Somersetshire. We ought to have been told before this, if we were to be told at all, that it was necessary to move an Instruction to the Committee on this matter, and I would have moved one myself. I think no more important question could possibly be discussed by the House, and I do protest most earnestly against it being shelved in this manner.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Gentleman has used rather strong language, and has said that the Government have not dealt fairly with this question. Stress was laid, no doubt, on the Second Reading of the Bill, and again in Committee, on personal payment. What I understand the Chairman to have ruled is that the matter is outside the scope of the Bill and outside its title, and that an Instruction could not have been moved to repeal the Compounding Act of 1869, which affects the whole mass of local taxation in this country, and not the paltry sum that will be levied under this Bill. The whole poor rate——

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

The poor rate is dealt with by this Bill.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

To a small extent. ["No, no!"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to state the case. They do not suppose that the £14,000,000 which is raised annually in the shape of poor rate in this country is a trifling matter which can be. put in the same line with the 1d. in the £1 which can be raised under this Bill. Whether that be so or not, the point has never been raised to-night. The point is, can you under this Bill repeal the Act under which £14,000,000 of our local taxation is practically raised? [Sir M. HICKS-BEACH: No.] I say, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that such a proposition was never made. The Government never entertained, nor wore they asked to entertain, the probability of repealing that Act under this Bill. Personally, I was told by the Leader of the Opposition that we should, at a later stage of the Bill, have a clause proposed to be inserted which would bring home to the ratepayers, as ho put it, their personal share in the ex- penditure. I am waiting to see that plan. I should be the last man to decide on any question without it being fully and fairly discussed. 1 have no desire to prevent such discussion, nor do the Government take any objection; but it has been ruled from the Chair, in reply to the hon. Baronet opposite, that it is not competent under this Bill to repeal the Act of 1869. I do not believe that the Government have in any way acted unfairly.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this matter was opened on I he Second Heading of the Bill; and since then we have been constantly referring to this question and desiring to find a proper opportunity of raising it. We discussed it on the Second Reading; we gave full warning to the Government that this was a particular point we desired to raise; then, when we came to the 2nd clause, we raised it again upon the question of the qualification of voters, and pointed out very plainly that we wanted to raise it not only because these voters were going to be elective as electors of the Parish Council, but that they were to elect the Boards of Guardians. We were told then that that was not the proper time to raise the question.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

You did raise it with reference to the Parish Council, not with reference to the Boards of Guardians.

MR. E. STANHOPE

We say it will be raised with respect to the Boards of Guardians.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That will be when we come to Clause 19.

MR. E. STANHOPE

I know perfectly well when we come to that clause the right hon. Gentleman will have many good reasons for objecting to take it then. We wanted to raise it on the first legitimate opportunity, but we were told that was not the time to raise it. We gave every notice in this Committee that what we proposed to do was to raise this specific question at a later stage of the Bill. Now, when that opportunity has been reached, we are told that we must let it pass and wait for another opportunity, and then suddenly we are told we cannot raise it at all.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE

thought the President of the Local Government Board was under some misapprehension in regard to this point. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of it just now as if it only affected rates levied under this Bill. The Resolution to which his hon. Friend had called attention in this Amendment would affect all rates levied for the purposes of the Poor Law, and all rates levied on the same basis as the poor rates. These rates were to be counted by millions; and what he complained of was that, though many of them had been seeking for information on this subject for the last six months, they had had no information vouchsafed them. It was this compulsory power of compounding that they had drawn attention to on many occasions, and on each occasion they had got a perfectly vague and indefinite answer. The answer simply amounted to the statement that the practice of compounding was very prevalent, or almost universal, in the country parishes. Yes, but the practice of compounding was of two kinds under two different sections of this Act, and he ventured to think the principle was a very different one. They might transfer or not transfer the power of compulsory compounding——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I must call attention to the fact that the hon. Member is now discussing the ruling of the Chair, and is out of Order. It is not in Order on this Amendment to continue that discussion.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

was sorry if he was transgressing any Rule of Order. He was speaking of the transfer of the compulsory power of compounding. This Amendment took exception to the power to order owners to be rated instead of occupiers under Section 4 of the Act of 1869, being transferred from one body (the Vestry) to another body (the Parish Council). There was a great distinction between the character of these two bodies, and, therefore, the transfer became a matter of very material importance. Under the present law the power was vested in the Vestry, which, as they all knew, was a body which was chiefly controlled by owners of property or large ratepayers, and it was very natural that 20 years ago this power should have been vested in such a body. The present proposal was to vest it in a totally different body, which would be controlled by the very class who were to benefit, directly, by this compulsory compounding; and, therefore, it became a matter of serious consideration whether, when they transferred this power as they did under the Bill, they ought not to transfer it to some superior authority to the Parish Council, instead of to a body which the class that formed the compound householders would entirely control. It was worthy of consideration whether they should not vest this power to order compulsory compounding in the District or County Council rather than the Parish Council, because the former bodies would be independent of the actual class of compound householders in the particular parish which would benefit by compulsory compounding.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, the President of the Local Government Board had stated that £14,000,000 poor-rate was practically raised under our present system, and that no one paid directly—except the landlords. That he thought was somewhat excessive, but it considerably strengthened the case if the landlords paid these £14,000,000, and they should do their best to keep their present system, or some such system, so that they might have the plural vote. By the Bill it was proposed to alter the constitution of the Assessment Committees. The rating authorities were to be altered; ex officio Guardians were to be abolished altogether, and the Boards of Guardians in future were to be composed entirely of elected members. Again, he would point out that at the present time the rating qualification had been considerably lowered. They had now a £o basis; but if Sub-section 2 of Clause 19 were carried, even this low basis of a £5 rating qualification would be abolished altogether, and in future these Elective Bodies dealing with these vast sums of moneys might be composed entirely of occupiers. That was a most serious consideration, and the Committee should pause before going any further with this question. If the Bill passed, a man who was rated at £250 would only have one vote, and he would be in exactly the same position as a man who paid only 2s. a week rent, and did not pay one penny of rates. He thought it highly desirable that the people who had votes in this matter regarding the expenditure of money should feel that they were voting for the expenditure of money which affected their own pockets. It was all very well to say that the people who paid rents really also paid the rates in their rents; but he would point out that while the rents of the cottagers remained stationary, the rates might be raised considerably over a series of years, the payment coming entirely out of the pockets of the owners, and not out of the pockets of the occupiers. He thought they should certainly pause before they went further in this matter, and he would suggest the advisability of adjourning the Debate.

MR. BOUSFIELD

rose to a point of Order. He desired to ask whether the Chairman was finally ruling the question put to him, because the hon. Member for Somerset only put a hypothetical question. He therefore submitted that the time had not come for a final ruling. But if the ruling was intended to be final, he desired to submit that as this Bill proposed to transfer certain powers from one body to another, and as the propriety, on the one hand, of leaving these powers in the hands of the Vestry came into question, and on the other hand the propriety of transferring the powers to the Parish Council came into question, that the propriety of extinguishing these powers altogether also would necessarily come into question as part of the whole question of policy in relation to the subject.

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

asked to be allowed to put this question to the Chair: Having regard to the tact that the House had not yet determined that the expenses of those Parish and District Councils were to come out of the poor rate, would it not be competent to move that the rate should be a separate and distinct rate, and in connection with that rate to provide that compounding should not apply? Such a Motion would enable the policy of compounding to be discussed.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must decline to answer that question now. As soon as it arises I will deal with it.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, the proposal his hon. Friend had made in his Amendment was that not the whole of the duties of the Vestry, but only a portion of those duties, could be handed over to the Parish Council; and he proposed to reserve in the Vestry the power of adopting the Compounding Acts. He agreed with his hon. Friend, and for this reason: He thought the Compounding Acts were unwise; therefore they had better leave them where they were—that was, with the authority which might not in the future deal with the rates instead of with the authority dealing with the rates, and which would have the power of relieving those who paid the rates from any direct contribution. He did not propose to repeal the Compounding Acts, but what he hoped was that under the Amendment of his hon. Friend their adoption would be limited. It had been pointed out over and over again that there were a great many parishes in which the majority of the persons who would vote for the Parish Council would not pay the rates. Surely that was an admirable reason why the Parish Council should not have the right—after having adopted all sorts of expensive Acts, after having placed the parish under a very large contribution for all sorts of things, such as recreation rooms, lighting, sewering, water, and he did not know what— to then take the Compounding Act and push off the shoulders of the majority of the population who had agreed to the adoption of all the other Acts any of the cost of the same. This principle had been before all Poor Law reformers for the last 50 or 60 years.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is not speaking to the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, the reason he supported the Amendment was because he considered the Compounding Acts were bad, and it would be an advantage to limit their operations.

The CHAIRMAN

said, the only question raised by this Amendment was whether these powers were to be transferred or not.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, his object was to show that these powers ought not to be transferred, and that if they remained where they were the adoption of the Compounding Act would not take place. They had all asked for in formation from the Government on this subject during the last six months, but no information had been given them. They had asked in how many county parishes the compounding was compulsory and in how many voluntary, but the right hon. Gentleman had told them it would take too much time to get these Returns. It was a very unwise and unsound doctrine to wish to push forward a Bill of this complexity when there was not even time to obtain the information upon which the Bill was founded. He wanted to know in how many cases this compounding——

Mr. H. H. Fowler

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 146; Noes 96.—(Division List, No. 340.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 94; Noes 145.—(Division List, No. 341.)

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.