COMMITTEE. [Progress, 27th November.]

HC Deb 28 November 1893 vol 18 cc1920-2001

[EIGHTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

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

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 25, after the word "church," to insert the words "or of an ecclesiastical charity."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

said that, in the absence of the hon. Member for Salisbury, he proposed to move to add to paragraph ii., after "parish meeting," the following words:— But the custody of all existing minutes, books, records, and papers of the parish and its Vestry meetings relating to the affairs of the church and the Vestry shall remain in the custody of the existing authorities. The object of the Amendment was a very simple one, and he hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would be able to accept it. There were many records hitherto kept by the Vestry which ought not to be removed from its custody. For instance, there were the Registers of Births, Deaths, and Marriages. They might be covered by the expression "connected with the affairs of the church," of which they had no definition given them. Again, there were records partly civil and partly ecclesiastical in their character, and what was to be done with those? Who was to decide as to the proper authority to take charge of them? Was there any reason why they should not he left in the custody of the Vestry? The Bill did not propose to abolish the Vestry; that would continue to exist as heretofore, and he therefore asked that it should still be allowed to have control over its own records. He feared that if the provision were left in its present vague form there would be a considerable amount of friction between the old and the new authority. A letter appeared in The Times to-day on this subject from Mr. Sydney Lee, a well-known student of history, who said— To transfer the archives summarily to the clerks of Parish Councils is not likely to benefit the student. His position would certainly be much worse than at present, if any new regulation did not distinctly define his right of access, fix on reasonable principles the scale of fees, and formally prescribe methods for the preservation of the documents from accidental injury. Should the sub-section already quoted from the Bill now before Parliament be rightly interpreted to affect parish registers, it fails in its present meagre form to satisfy any of the conditions which the student deems essential to satisfactory legislation on the subject. From his point of view it neglects the essential issues, and it is to be hoped either that it will be withdrawn, or that the historical parish records will be specifically excluded from its scope. He could only say in submitting this Amendment that if the Government accepted it, those who, like himself, were interested in parish records would not find it necessary later on to seek to provide in the future greater access to them. There was really no reason for handing the custody of the records over to the new authority, especially as the old authority would continue to exist, and it would be difficult to decide what records should be retained, and which should be handed over.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 27, after the words "parish meeting," to insert, the words "But the custody of all existing minutes, books, records, and papers of the parish and its Vestry meetings relating to the affairs of the church and the Vestry shall remain in the custody of the existing authorities."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

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

I am quite sure that hon. Members generally agree with the object of the hon. Member, which is the safe custody of all parish documents, and the avoiding, as far as practicable, of those evils which Mr. Lee has pointed out in his letter to The Times to-day. I must, however, refer the Committee on this question to the amending clause which I have put down to Clause 16, the proper place, in my opinion, to deal with this matter. I propose to insert the following:— All parish books and documents, other than those relating exclusively to the affairs of the Church or to ecclesiastical charities, but inclusive of any documents directed by law to be kept with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish, shall either remain in their existing custody, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council may direct; and the incumbent and Churchwardens on the one part, and the Parish Council on the other, shall have reasonable access to the documents in the custody of the other of them, and any difference as to custody or access shall be determined by the County Council. Every County Council shall from time to time inquire into the manner in which the parish books and documents are kept with a view to the proper preservation thereof, and shall make such orders as they think necessary for such preservation, and those orders shall be complied with by the Parish Council or parish meeting. There is no doubt that many valuable papers of an antiquarian and historical character have been allowed to be destroyed or go astray; at all events, they have ceased to become available for any practical purposes. Where these documents refer to the affairs of the Church, we do not touch them at all. They remain where they are. The Vestry, as the ecclesiastical body, will take charge of them. With reference to baptisms, burials, and marriages, legislation has already dealt with that subject, and we do not interfere with the existing law. Under the Act Geo. III., the Registers must be kept by the vicar, rector, curate, or officiating minister of the parish, while under a subsequent Act provision is made for depositing duplicate copies of the Registers at Somerset House. With reference to any other papers, the clause which I propose to insert will, we consider, cover the whole of the secular documents, and as the Parish Council will be responsible for the safe custody of them, it would no doubt make due provision for their care. Under these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment, and I think he will agree with me that the proposed addition to Clause 16 will meet his wishes.

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

I think my Iron. Friend would be well advised in not pressing the Amendment now. There is considerable difficulty in the Parish Councils undertaking the custody of those documents, which are very important documents. In many cases the Parish Council will have no building in which to place them. I should be glad if the Government will reconsider the matter before we come to Clause 16. I would suggest that those documents which were required for present use should alone be transferred to the Parish Councils, the ancient ones being handed over to the County Council—a far more responsible body— which would thus be able to form a valuable collection for the benefit of the county or of anybody who wished to search the records of the county. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider this matter, and not transfer the custody of documents from one body, however careless it may be, to another body likely to be still more careless.

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

pointed out that the Vestry now had to arrange for the custody of various records, and if the Committee allowed this matter to stand over till Clause 16 was reached they might be met with the answer that the custody of books had already been given to the Parish Council. He thought they should have a clear understanding that the point could be raised on Clause 16.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

thought the statement of the right hon. Gentleman would save the time of the Committee with regard to the question of the custody of the Registers. He failed to see, however, how documents now by law vested in the Overseers were to be dealt with.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

asked the President of the Local Government Board who was to decide what records should be handed over to the Parish Council? He was bound to point out that the words were very ambiguous, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would give further consideration to the points now raised before Clause 16 was reached.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he thought the objection taken by the hon. Member for Thirsk was a good one. He agreed, however, that the chief question was how could these documents and records best be taken care of. The Parish Council or meeting would be a body without a local habitation; it would meet in the schoolroom; it would have no place in which to store the documents, and in consequence there would be great danger of losing them. Persons interested in historical and antiquarian records now knew that if they wanted to examine such documents that it was only necessary to apply to the Churchwarden, but the division of them into ecclesiastical and secular, and the placing of them in separate custody, would give greater trouble to students of history, who would be at a loss to know where to find what they wanted. He would suggest that documents not required for the present or future work of the Parish Council should be left in their present custody, with, of course, provision that the Council should have free access to them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give them some better assurance than had already been given, for the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment by no means covered the case.

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

I do hope the Committee will now dispose of this Amendment. It is perfectly plain that a discussion on this subject will take place on Clause 16, and what is the use, therefore, in now wasting our time in discussing it, especially when the right hon. Member for Bristol has suggested the Amendment should not be pressed in view of the coming discussion on Clause 16? The hon. Member who has just sat down repeated over and over again exactly the views which had been put forward by previous speakers. I do submit that this Amendment might now reasonably be withdrawn.

MR. HAYES FISHER (Fulham)

did not intend to repeat what anybody else had said, but he contended that this matter ought to be made clear so as to save time when they came to Clause 16. The President of the Local Government Board had stated that the Parish Council was the Body in whose possession these documents should remain. But in small parishes there would be no Parish Council, and there was, in such cases, no provision as to the custody of such documents. Some adequate provision ought to be made here to meet these cases.

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

suggested, as a way out of the difficulty, that the documents should be allowed to remain where they were until the establishment of the Parish Councils, and then each Parish Council should be allowed to keep its own documents.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, that after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, and on the understanding that there should be a full discussion on Clause 16, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TOMLLNSON moved the following Amendment:—In page 4, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (b). He said his objection to this clause was similar to the objections he had stated to parts of previous clauses; that was, in a Kill of this kind it was very desirable, considering the people who had to work it, that they should lay down clearly and distinctly what powers, duties, and liabilities were conferred upon these Bodies. He could not help thinking that very much anxiety would be felt, particularly among the people connected with the Church, as to the position in which they would be placed, or the interpretation which was to be put upon the clause. Considering that Churchwardens had been in existence for such a long period, and that, hitherto, there had been no marked distinction between their secular and their ecclesiastical duties, a clause framed like this was might give rise to a deal of difficulty and might frequently require the interpretation of the Courts of Law. The Government ought to be able to give some indication of what the powers, duties, and liabilities were which were included under this section; and if they could state them, even partially, it would be an advantage to substitute for these general words a specific statement of the powers that were to be transferred. He desired especially to call attention to the last words of the sub-section, but inclusive of the obligations of the Churchwardens with respect to closed churchyards. He believed it would not be disputed that whatever those words were intended to cover, they had reference only to a particular Statute and to certain duties and liabilities imposed by that Statute. That was a very specific, thing. Why should not a clause have been added under a figure 4, following Section 3? He contended that Parliament ought to define more precisely what those powers were which were to be handed over to the Parish Councils, and not leave them to be discovered afterwards by expensive litigation. He bogged to move the omission of Sub-section (b).

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will not anticipate any subsequent Amendments in reference to closed churchyards. A number of Amendments have been put on the Paper with reference to that subject, but they had better be discussed when they are moved in their proper order. In reference to the general scope of the clause, I think the hon. Gentleman will not consider me discourteous if I really decline to traverse the ground over which we have already gone. We have fully discussed this question, and a far higher authority than I am—namely, the Solicitor General—has explained to the House that this was the proper mode of carrying out this transfer, which I stated to be the object of the Act— namely, in all matters of a purely secular character the powers, duties, and liabilities of Churchwardens are to vest in the Parish Council. That may be a wise course or it may be an unwise course. That, however, is the course the Government propose, and to accept this Amendment practically would be to deprive the Bill of one of its principal features. There has never been any reticence as to the intention of the Government in the matter. As to churchyards, that is a point we shall be prepared to discuss when we arrive at the proper place for its discussion. Last night, I think prematurely, I ventured to suggest that that was the proper time to raise the question; but hon. Gentlemen thought not, and they preferred to discuss the transfer of powers under Clause 5. We discussed it thou, and settled it, then; actually there was a Division on the question that the whole clause stand part of the Bill, and if we are to make any progress with the Bill when the House has decided a question we must not go back and fight it over and over again.

MR. HANBURY

said, of course, this clause only referred entirely to the Churchwardens of rural parishes. Were there any parishes still left which were not rural parishes in which the Churchwardens would be Overseers ex officio?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

observed that that was a question to be raised on Clause 29. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had raised that point, and he (Mr. Fowler) had promised to draft, and had now drafted, an Amendment to Clause 59, in relation to what were called urban rural parishes. The powers were confined exclusively to rural parishes; it would be for the House on Part II. to say whether any of these powers given to rural parishes should be given to any of the other parishes.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, with reference to the point that this question had been raised before, he wished to say that the whole argument of the Solicitor General was directed entirely to the question of property; but here they were considering what were to be the duties of certain officers, and it was only fair to them, seeing they would not be men versed in the law or acquainted with matters outside their own villages, that the Government should define more accurately than they did in this clause what were to be the duties and liabilities to be imposed upon them. However, if the Committee were not desirous that he should press his Amendment, he would not do so, but would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow) moved the following Amendment:— In page 4, line 29, after the words "relate to," to insert the words "churchyards, or to. The object of the Amendment, he said, was to make it quite clear that the control of the churchyards were not to be handed over by this clause. It was, he should say, part of the scheme he proposed subsequently to strike out the words— but inclusive of the obligations of the Churchwardens with respect to closed churchyards. Objection might possibly be suggested to this scheme that at present some of the expenses for the upkeeping of the churchyard might be charged to the Poor Rate; but to meet that he had put down an Amendment, which would come at the end, in which he had proposed to repeal the 18 & 19 Vict., c. 128, s. 18, so far as related to the maintenance of the churchyards. He could see from several Amendments which had been put down subsequently that a good many hon. Members had exactly the same object in view as he had; and if the President of the Local Government Board would accept the principle they all desired, there ought not to be difficulty in finding out the aptest words for carrying it out. In the first place, he desired that the control of the churchyards, either closed or unclosed, should remain with the churchwardens, because if they wore to have the churchyards under the control of lay officers, and treated as being lay property, whilst, at the same time, the Church was under ecclesiastical authority, it was obvious that much ground of friction must arise from time to time. He thought that as regarded churchyards which were contiguous to or adjoining any church the reason of this would be apparent at once. It would be a positive absurdity to have the fabric of the Church under ecclesias- tical control and to have the churchyards through which they had to enter the Church under a lay authority. It had been suggested that there were a certain number of churchyards contiguous to churches where the same objection did not apply, and if words were introduced to exclude such churchyards as were a considerable distance from the church he should not personally object to accepting those words. But it appeared to him the logical and proper way to proceed was to insert here the words— The powers, duties, and liabilities of the Churchwardens of the parish, except so far as they relate to churchyards. They had only got the words in here so far as related to "the affairs of the Church," and one of the first questions that would arise with reference to the construction of the Act would be whether the duties of Churchwardens with reference to churchyards were relating to the affairs of the Church. That could not be the meaning according to the words which occurred at the end of the subsection; at any rate, there was a doubt as to how far this objection might be transferred or not. He did not think this could be the meaning of the framers, and he took it all the objection to what he proposed was got over when the Churchwardens were willing to give up that right which they now had to come upon the Poor Rate for the upkeep of the churchyards. For that reason he proposed to repeal the Act which enabled them to do that. If there were any exceptions to be made to that they might he made by apt words, by saying that churchyards entirely separate from, or distant from, the Church should not be included in the exceptions. It had been suggested there were a certain number of churchyards which were now not used for burials or in connection with the churches in any way, but these had been dealt with under the Open Spaces Act, and he did not propose to touch them. He should not interfere with making open spaces of disused churchyards. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 29; after the words "relate to," to insert the words "churchyards, or to."— (Mr. Byrne.)

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

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

we have already dealt, in Clause 5, Sub-section (c), with the legal interest in all property vested in the Overseers or Churchwardens other than property connected with the affairs of the Cuurch. Now, certainly the churchyard is property connected with the affairs of the Church. So is the rectory house. Supposing then, dealing in that way, excluding the churchyard, the freehold of which is usually in the Incumbent of the parish, with respect to which he has rights, and the Churchwardens have certain rights and duties, if we began by excepting them the suggestion would be that you have said nothing about the rectory house; therefore, the construction must be that the rectory house is not considered by you to be connected with the affairs of the Church. I say nothing about closed churchyards, because that is the subject of a separate Amendment, but I submit that to put in these words is to throw a doubt upon the ex tent of the phrase which we have already placed in Clause 4, "connected with the affairs of the Church," tending to limit that on the well-known argument that if it were necessary to mention churchyards, which are close to the Church and vested in the Incumbent, à fortiori it would be necessary to mention the rectory house, which may be miles away. You are in every way injuring the clause and not improving it by putting in matter of that kind. With reference to the question as to "the affairs of the Church," that is the only Parliamentary phrase ever used in cases in which there has been an attempt to separate secular from the ecclesiastical affairs of the parish.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, that Clause 5, to which reference had been made, related only to property which was vested in the Churchwardens or Overseers. Nobody ever suggested that the Overseers had any right over the churchyard. This clause, however, related to a totally different thing, and it was not a question of property, but of the duties of Churchwardens. There was no doubt that Churchwardens had definite duties with regard to churchyards.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

was glad this Amendment: had been moved, because they had obtained a specific declaration from the Government with regard to this clause, and he must say he did not think the Solicitor General was particularly happy in his statement in regard to it. He spoke as if Churchwardens had something to do with the rectory, and the logical deduction from that——

* SIR J. RIGBY

I did not attempt to explain the law—which would probably take hours—as to churchyards. I merely mentioned that the fee was vested in the Incumbent, and that certain duties and rights were vested in the Incumbent and in the Churchwardens. I never suggested for a moment that the Churchwardens had anything to do with the rectory house.

MR. E. STANHOPE

did not think it necessary to follow the Solicitor General's argument, but that was the logical deduction to draw from what he said.

* SIR J. RIGBY

I did not mean to say it.

MR. E. STANHOPE

was glad to have this declaration of the Government. For his part, he was not afraid with regard to the churchyards, for he did not think there was anything to affect them as a whole. He did not, therefore, think it necessary to discuss the matter here, but they might reserve the discussion until they came to the question of closed churchyards.

* MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)

thought the matter required a little further consideration. The clause transferred the powers from the Churchwardens to the Parish Councils— Except so far as relates to the affairs of the Church or ecclesiastical charities. Did the Government maintain that the whole liabilities of Churchwardens relating to churchyards related also to the affairs of the Church? Could it be maintained that the preservation of the fences of the churchyards were matters relating to the affairs of the Church? because, if not, these were matters which would be transferred from the Churchwardens to the Parish Councils. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but how otherwise did he interpret the words of his own clause? Then, was it maintained that everything connected with the churchyard related to the affairs of the Church? That would have to be determined not by a shake of the head but by the Courts of Law. If the Parish Council wanted to put fences round a churchyard which were offensive to the church people, then the matter would have to be decided by the Courts of Law.

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

remarked, that in Prudhoe's Churchwardens' Guide it was stated that one of the duties of Churchwardens in reference to churchyards was to prevent any sink or gutter being made therein. Would that come under the definition of "affairs of the Church"?

* SIR J. RIGBY

Everything connected with a churchyard which is being used is connected with the Church, and is an affair of the Church.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)

had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 4, line 30, after "church," insert "or its schools. He said, he desired to ask the Solicitor General whether he considered in all cases that schools would be deemed as being affairs relating to the Church?

SIR J. RIGBY

No.

MR. KIMBER

intimated that he did not intend to move his Amendment.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN moved the following Amendment:— In page 4, line 30, after "church," insert "or to any room or building the ownership, trusteeship, management, or control whereof is by its constitution vested exclusively in ministers or officers of any particular church or denomination, or their or any of their nominees, or in any of such persons. He ventured to think this was a very important Amendment, and its object was to save parish rooms which had been provided by the Church people by Church money.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

On a point of Order, I would ask whether this is not anticipating the discussion on Clause 54—the Definition Clause—to which the hon. Member has already on the Paper an Amendment in these very words?

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, if he were allowed to move the Amendment now he would withdraw it on the other clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that the Amendment was in Order.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, that the members of the Church of England took more interest in this than in any other question in the whole Bill. The President of the Local Government, Board, on the First Reading of the Bill, said he did not wish to touch Church property. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman was willing to abide by that statement; but the Bill as it stood most distinctly touched Church property, and affected a large number of parish rooms which had been built solely by Church money, by Church people, and which were devoted now to Church meeting purposes. There was a large number of rooms not used for religious purposes, and were not specifically in the possession of any one particular denomination, but these were, nevertheless, as much the property of the Church as anything could be the property of any individual or any Corporation. The Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Benson) had spoken of these rooms in these words— I think that we shall find a very large number of rooms which are not used for spiritual purposes. They are used for concerts and clubrooms, and purposes like these; still they have been entirely the creation of the Church at very great cost. They do not exclude other people than Church people making use of them; but they have been gifts to the Church. In order to prove his case to the House he (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) would refer to three cases. The first was at Llan-dyrnog, in Denbighshire. It was a case of a parish room built in 1884, entirely at the expense of Churchmen, for the use of the Church. The Trust deed handed it over entirely to the management of the Rector and Churchwardens. There were no religious rules or rules of any kind. This was a case where the room was Church property, and under Church management. There was, again, the case of St. Mary's, Bungay, where the room was built in 1888. It was not built for any particular purpose, religious or secular. In another case, at Feckenham, Redditch, the room was built only last year, 1892; it was a parish library, and it was under the control of the Vicar and Churchwardens. There were no religious purposes and no Trustees beyond the Vicar and the Wardens. He included in Ills category rooms of that class, together with almshouses, or any room which was vested in the Church or the Church, wardens. These rooms were all of a class, and should be safeguarded in the manner he proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that it was not intended to hand over these rooms to the Parish Councils, but his Amendment to Clause 58 did not carry out that intention. The Amendment read— For the maintenance or repair of any church, chapel, mission room, or Sunday school, or of any building proved to the satisfaction of the Charity Commissioners to be held in trust for any particular Church or denomination. The Amendment was important to save parish rooms, which were undoubtedly built with Church money for Church purposes. By the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment every single parish room, whether it was included in the expression "ecclesiastical charity" or not, if it was vested in the Churchwardens, was to be handed over.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he was taking the right hon. Gentleman's own words.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Read on.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that he was right in his construction of the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That statement has been made by Mr. Dibden, but both Sir Henry Jenkins and the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby) differ from his construction of the clause with the proposed Amendment. They are of opinion that the words include the room itself, as well as its repair and maintenance. Therefore, whether the hon. Member is satisfied with the words or not, I am advised that they clearly carry out the intention of the Government—that is, to preserve not only any fund which has been set up for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any church, chapel, mission room, or Sunday school, but also the church, chapel, mission room, or Sunday school itself.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to modify his Amendment so as to make it clear to everybody that the room itself was included within the provisions of the clause. They were going to fight upon the definition that buildings erected by Church money were Church buildings, and they were determined to have their property maintained as adequately as the right hon. Gentleman himself said that it would be maintained when he introduced the Bill. He could not carry out his intention as then expressed, except by using the words he (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) proposed, or some words of a like character. He must point out that, if this were not done, the confiscating policy remained, and the parish rooms would be handed over to two members of the Parish Council in place of the Churchwardens. The Vicar would thus be placed in a minority, and could not control his own Church room—a position that must exceed even the most sanguine hopes of the Liberation Society. It was extraordinary if property that had been held since, say, 1850, was to be handed over in this way. The Record newspaper had obtained returns from the parishes which showed that, while 10 per cent. of the parish rooms were in existence before 1860, 48 per cent. were founded between 1880 and 1890, and 20 per cent. between 1890 and 1893. He felt sure the right hon. Gentleman must recognise that this Amendment was called for, and he felt sure he would agree that some words should be introduced for the purpose of safeguarding them. There was at present no safeguard whatever. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 30, after the word "church," to insert the words, "or to any room or building the ownership, trusteeship, management, or control whereof is by its constitution vested exclusively in ministers or officers of any particular Church or denomination, and their or any of their nominees, or in any of such persons."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite appreciate the strong feeling that exists on this subject, and if there were any intention to confiscate the property of the Church the hon. Member's strong expressions might perhaps be justified. But there is no such intention, and I do not believe the Bill is subject to that criticism. I want to point out that there is some inconvenience in the present mode of proceeding. The hon. Member has put down the same Amendment twice, reserving to himself the right, if he is defeated now, of raising the question again on the Definition Clause. Well, Sir, it is impossible for us to discuss this question twice over. At the proper time I will be prepared to contend that what are really and truly Church, parish, or mission rooms are completely safeguarded. But the proper time to raise that question is when we come to the definition of "ecclesiastical charities," and I cannot be a party to discussing such matters two or three times over. I cannot accept the Amendment; I would lather not vote against it, my desire being to leave the question open, in order that at the proper time the views of all parties may be duly considered.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had, unintentionally, no doubt, been rather hard on the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. The hon. Member said he did not wish to raise the question twice over, but that he thought this Amendment was in perfect Order. He (Mr. Stanhope) thought that if the hon. Member did nothing else, he might have had the advantage of eliciting the views of the Government upon the question. The Government must see that this was a matter that was exercising the minds of Churchmen very deeply, and that it was highly desirable, in the interests of the progress of this Bill, that they should try and arrive at a solution of the matter now. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to give them an assurance to cover the ground of the Amendment, they would get on more quickly, and have no difficulty at all. He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give some precise answer to certain definite points. There were certain cases where the parish rooms, though vested in the Churchwardens, were not used for Church purposes,—not exclusively used for them. They wanted to know whether the Bill covered this or not. Then there were certain cases where there was no declaration of trust cases in which the rooms, or building's, were founded by Church money. As far as he could see, he did not think there was any proposal to cover such rooms at all. They claimed that these rooms should be safeguarded by this Bill, and that words should be introduced at some stage of the Bill for the purpose of safeguarding them. He did not enter into the matter in any controversial spirit, but, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to give them some specific declaration.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could only again point out that they were not discussing Clause 58, upon which this question would properly arise. He thought it would be found that they had provided for the cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. They had provided a tribunal which would be in a position to settle the question. They believed that Clause 58 would carry out the intention of the Government. They were so advised; hut, if there was any doubt on the question, they were ready to hear the matter discussed. He admitted the force of the hon. Member's argument; and he was anxious that there should be no provision which could give an opportunity for litigation. He was of opinion that Acts of Parliament should never provide for lawsuits. The Government wished that their intention should be made clear; but he respectfully submitted that that was not a time to discuss Clause 58. They would be prepared, if necessary, to discuss it line by line and word by word. They approached it from their point of view, and hon. Gentlemen opposite from theirs; but he must again ask the Committee to consider the disadvantage of discussing that clause until they came to the clause itself.

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

said, he thought the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) had made a most admirable speech, and had dealt with the matter in a manner which should show the difficulties that would arise; and he thought also that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) had shown his sense of the difficulty of the question. He desired, so far as he could, to meet any reasonable proposal that might be made. The right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, was entitled to give some kind of advice as to the most convenient time for submitting an Amendment, and, in those circumstances, he thought the hon. Member might be content for the moment with having brought the question so prominently before the Committee, and that he might await the opportunity of raising it again.

* MR. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, he wished to endorse what had fallen from right hon. Gentlemen on the Bench (the Front Opposition Bench) below him, and to say, as one right hon. Gentleman had said, that—and he (Mr. Talbot) personally knew it—this question was most deeply felt, not only among the clergy, but among the laity, of the Church of England. It was most deeply felt, as affecting what had been distinctly reserved for purposes designed by living donors. They should have it distinctly understood that when Clause 58 was reached they should have an opportunity of discussing that clause. Recent history made them a little anxious upon that point. It was not very long since the main clauses of a Bill were passed through without adequate discussion—he might say without discussion at all. He thought they should have an assurance that this matter would be fully discussed.

MR. BYRNE

said, he had an Amendment similar to this on the Paper, and he wished to say that his chief object in dealing with the matter was because these rooms were used for the general purposes of the parish and not for religious purposes solely, if at all. They were built by Church money and vested in the Vicar or Churchwardens as representing the Church in the village. Only within the last fortnight a friend of his had come to him and said he had a house which he wished to dedicate for public purposes. His friend was not going to give it to the control of any but the Rector or the Churchwardens, and if he could not do that he was going to keep it in his own hands while he lived and make provision with regard to it after his death. There was a very considerable number of rooms exactly in this position—the rooms were not for particular congregational purposes, but when the management was vested in Church officers. They should have some assurance that on Clause 58 the question would be gone into, and that they would have such protection for ecclesiastical property as was not included within its scope. They would see by the terms of the clause that it did not include such rooms as he had mentioned. The Clause (58) said— The expression 'trustees' includes persons administering or managing any charity or recreation ground, or other property or thing in relation to which the word is used. The expression 'ecclesiastical charity' means a charity the income whereof is either wholly or partly applicable for any spiritual purpose which is now a legal purpose, or for the benefit of any spiritual person as such, or for the erection, maintenance, or repair of any ecclesiastical buildings, or for the maintenance of Divine service therein, whether such purpose has or has not now failed. And the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman said that "ecclesiastical charity" meant a charity— The income whereof is applicable for some one or more of the following purposes:— … for the maintenance or repair of any church, chapel, mission room or Sunday school, or of any building proved to the satisfaction of the Charity Commissioners to be held in trust for any particular Church or denomination. He ventured to point out that the right hon. Gentleman had not appreciated the class of rooms that the Amendment referred to.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, as far as he was personally concerned, he was quite satisfied with the statement which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) regarding Clause 58—that there would be opportunity for full and fair discussion of this matter, and that they should have the various matters raised fully and fairly discussed. He would like also to endorse what had been said by his hon. Friends. This discussion had not been got up for the purpose merely of ventilating the subject. If he had had one letter he had had 30 or 40 letters urging the importance of the matter. He quite believed that the right hon. Gentleman had no desire to injuriously affect their interests by the Bill. Another remark he would like to make was with regard to the expression, "so far as relating to the affairs of the Church," as interpreted by the Solicitor General. He hoped the Solicitor General would take them more into his confidence with regard to the meaning he attached to these words. A statement had been made last night that the words "affairs of the Church" were extremely vague. If his hon. and learned Friend said these were words that were well understood, he, for one, should be satisfied: but he was bound to say that it always occurred to him that such a general expression was not satisfactory. This was a question that must be considered on Clause 58. He thought it right to make this statement, and he hoped the Solicitor General would give them the benefit of his assistance when it came to be discussed.

* MR. WADDY (Lincolnshire, Brigg)

said, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke as Churchmen. He wished to point out that there were some people who did not speak as Churchmen but as Englishmen, and that they had a very strong feeling indeed upon this question, whether Churchmen or not, in direct opposition to the views that had been expressed.

An hon. MEMBER

Where?

MR. WADDY

said, he should be prepared at the proper time to give instances. Only within the past few months a collection had been made for the building of a parish room in his own division. True, that in most cases the management of these rooms, when built, was vested in the Vicar or Rector for the time being, but it was also true that collections were made for parish rooms from Churchmen, Nonconformists, and others, living both in and out of the parish. They were intended for the use of all the parishioners equally, and to hand all those buildings over to one religious denomination was a proposition to which ho, for one, could not assent. He would not argue the whole matter out now, as it would not be in Order, but inasmuch as hon. Gentlemen opposite had put the question forward from their point of view, it did not seem unfair to indicate, in a word or two, the other side of the question.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he regretted very much the note of discord which had fallen from the hon. Member opposite. He (Sir R. Paget) only rose to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would lend a ready ear to the arguments already used. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when Clause 58 came up he would not only consider any Amendment that might be brought forward, but propose an Amendment giving effect to the promise that buildings left in trust for a particular Church or denomination should continue to be under the control of that Church or denomination. The understanding ought to be an express one.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have not given any undertaking to bring forward an Amendment. I have promised that there shall be the fullest, the fairest, and most ample discussion of the clause when it comes up, and it will be my duty, of course, to consider every Amendment. I have no doubt, and the Law Officers of the Crown have no doubt, that whatever the building is which conies under the conditions set forth, will be included within the clause. I said that if there was reasonable ground to doubt that this I would be the case, words would be introduced to make our intention clear and beyond doubt. I respectfully decline to express an opinion on Clause 58 at all, but I do give a pledge to the Committee that on Clause 58 there shall be no attempt to curtail discussion. I recognise that it is one of the most important clauses of the Bill. No doubt there will be different views expressed from both sides of the House. All I ask the Committee to do is to defer the consideration of this by no means insignificant question until the proper time.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

[Cries of "Agreed! agreed!"] said, they were asked to consider, under a clause providing for ecclesiastical charities, a matter which was not an ecclesiastical charity. There was no doubt that these parish rooms were not ecclesiastical. They were connected with the work of the Church, and would come under the definition of "the affairs of the Church," but they were not ecclesiastical. An assurance, therefore, should be given by the Government that they would consider the matter as other than having to do with ecclesiastical charities.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, he would withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he hoped there would be no difficulty in accepting the next Amendment, which was to enlarge the ecclesiastical charities. He understood that money subscribed by the sick and needy, even if collected in the Church itself, would not be considered ecclesiastical charity. No less an authority than Lord Selborne, he believed, had said that under the Bill offertories for the poor in the churches which were now dealt with by the clergyman and Churchwardens, would come under the Parish Council. He had been asked to press the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on this point, in order that they might have words brought in which would make it clear that non-ecclesiastical and offertory money now dealt with by the clergyman and Churchwardens would not be placed in the hands of a secular body.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 30, after the word "charities," to insert the words "or to the disposal of any moneys collected in any place of worship."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could hardly understand how money collected in a church could be other than an affair of the church. The rubric which governed the disposition of moneys given at offertories, provided that the money collected should be disposed of for such pious and charitable uses as the clergy and Churchwardens should appoint, and, in case they disagreed, as the Ordinary should direct. It certainly would appear that a collection made in the course of Divine Service in a church by the officers of the church to be disposed of exclusively by the officers of the church, the final disposition resting with the Bishop, must be an affair of the church.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he wished to move to leave out from the word "Overseers" to the end of Sub-section (b), and to insert— Provided that nothing in this section shall affect or prejudice the obligations of the Churchwardens with respect to closed churchyards. His excuse for mentioning "closed" churchyards exclusively was that that was the phrase used in the sub-section which said— But inclusive of the obligations of the Churchwardens with respect to closed church yards. The purport of the words in the subsection was that the duties of the Overseers in respect of these closed churchyards were to be transferred to the Parish Council. Those words he now moved to leave out in order to substitute the words in his Amendment. This was a matter on which he could assure the Committee his brother Churchmen in the parishes felt deeply and keenly. He had been especially requested by them to press this matter on the consideration of the House. They had already heard to their great satisfaction that the churchyards which were contiguous to and surrounded the churches were to continue the property of the church, and remain under the officer of the church. But there remained a question regarding those closed churchyards which lay at some little distance and were separate from the precincts and neighbourhood of the church. It was to those that his Amendment referred. He need not remind the Committee of the sacred associations which in the minds of Churchmen surrounded the churchyards and the cemeteries where their forefathers and the Christian dead reposed. But he would like to aver in the presence of his brother Churchmen that the same associations, and the same sentiments, and the same ideas clung to the closed churchyards, and that whatever objection they might have to the churchyards proper being made over to the Parish Councils exactly and identically, fully and completely applied to closed churchyards at a distance from the church. He knew there was a question as to whether any of these closed churchyards received any assistance from the rates. But he admitted that if they were to maintain their position that the closed churchyards should remain under the church or church officers they might, perhaps, have to surrender all assistance from the rates. That assistance was not of very great importance. The main point in the estimate of Churchmen was that these sacred places should be preserved to the Church of their fathers, and for these strong reasons he begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 4, line 31, to leave out from the word "Overseers," to the end of line 32, and insert "Provided that nothing in this section shall affect or prejudice the obligations of the Churchwardens with respect to closed churchyards."—(Sir R. Temple.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think we shall be able to arrive at some satisfactory solution of this question. I explained to the House on the Second Reading that this in our view is purely a sanitary and fiscal arrangement, and that there is no intention to interfere with churchyards, whether closed or not. We recognise, as the Solicitor General has already said, that the freehold of the churchyard is vested in the Incumbent, and that the control of the churchyard is one of the affairs of the Church. But under an Act, passed in the 18 & 19 Vict., provision was made, where churchyards were closed, that the Churchwardens should repair the fences and keep the churchyards in order, and that, unless there was some other fund chargeable, the expense should be paid out of the poor rate. Now, the principle I venture to submit to the House is that where public money is used for any public purpose a Public Authority should have the control of the expenditure. It has been represented by the hon. Baronet opposite that there is a strong feeling among Churchmen against the control of closed churchyards passing into the hands of the Parish Councils, and that there would be a disposition on the part of Churchmen to give up all claim upon the poor rates if that point were not pressed. Two Amendments stand upon the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Somersetshire upon this point, which I am prepared to accept with a slight modification so as to make the clause read thus:— Upon the Parish Council of a rural parish coming into office there shall be transferred to that Council … (b) the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Churchwardens of the parish, except so far as they relate to the affairs of the Church, or to ecclesiastical charities, or are powers and duties of Overseers, but inclusive of the obligations of the Churchwardens with respect to maintaining and repairing closed churchyards wherever the expenses of such maintenance and repair are repayable, after the passing of the Act, out of the poor rate. In that case, all that we should transfer to the Parish Council would be the powers, duties, and liabilities with respect to the maintenance and repair of closed churchyards where the expenses of such maintenance and repair are claimed to be repaid out of the poor rates. With regard to the doubt and distrust that have been entertained by hon. Members opposite as to the probable action of the Parish Councils of our rural parishes in this matter, I can only say that in my view the Parish Councils will be as proud of their churchyards as any Churchman can be, and that they will take an equal interest in their maintenance and repair. As I say, where public money is spent upon the maintenance and repair of these closed churchyards, they ought to be under the control of a Public Body; but that, where no demand is made in that respect upon public funds, the Churchwardens should have the right to maintain and repair such places out of any funds which they may legally devote to that purpose. That is my answer to all the Amendments on the Paper. After the best consideration we have been able to give to the matter, we think that the most satisfactory Amendments are those of the hon. Member for Somersetshire. Those, with some modification, we are prepared to accept.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, they were all much gratified at hearing the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman, which was calculated to bring about a satisfactory settlement of a vexed and difficult question. There might be cases in which, for some time after the passing of the Act, the expenses would be paid out of the poor rate. Some arrangement should be made whereby the Church officials could retain possession of the closed churchyards, even though the expense of their maintenance had been borne by the poor rate for some time after the passing of the Act.

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, he apprehended that, under the Amendments of the hon. Member for the Eastern Division of Somersetshire, any person who desired that the power of the Churchwardens over closed churchyards should be restored, and that the Parish Councils should be deprived of control over them, could carry out his object by providing a fund that would be legally chargeable for the maintenance and repair. But it would not be providing a fund that would be legally chargeable to say—"I will pay for the repair and maintenance this year."

MR. COURTNEY

said, they must all acknowledge the conciliatory spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had approached this subject, but there was a point referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) which he thought deserved consideration. Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a slight alteration in the words he proposed to take from the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire by converting "repayable" into "repaid"? If that were done the matter would be clear, and persons who were; interested in the churchyards and who might desire to take on themselves the expense of their maintenance could do so without interfering with their management.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that might postpone the operation until the money was paid. Everyone should know who was to undertake the repair and maintenance. The Churchwardens would know that it the expense did not fall upon the poor rate they could undertake the repair and maintenance if they thought proper. If they did not undertake the duty, they would know that the management of the churchyards would fall upon the Parish Council. There was something to be said in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan, who proposed to add after "churchyards" the words "under 'The Burial Act, 1855.'" The Government, however, had considered the matter carefully according to the proposal of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, and if, on Report, it was thought desirable to further amend the section, Amendments could be proposed. In accepting Amendments it was necessary to guard against undesirable results. He was not strong at extemporising Amendments on the floor of the House.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, it might be advantageous to use the word "paid" in place of "repaid" as proposed. The hon. Member for Islington, who was a Churchwarden, had recently been concerned in a case which he (Sir R. Webster) had argued in the Queen's Bench Division, in which it was held that "repaid" meant "provide a sum to pay." That, decision still stood. The word "paid" would be satisfactory to hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

said, he was glad the principle was accepted that control and expenditure should go together. The present state of the law was most anomalous, Churchwardens being able to incur heavy liabilities and to call upon the ratepayers to discharge them. Most extravagant charges had been paid in some cases by the ratepayers. He understood that, in future, whenever the parish had to pay it would have a voice in the expenditure.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 4, line 32, after "respect to," to insert "maintaining and repairing. After last Amendment to add, "In closed churchyards the expenses of such maintenance and repair are repayable out of the poor rate.

On Motion of Sir F. S. POWELL, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 4, line 32, after "churchyards," insert "under 'The Burial Act, 1855.'

* MR. KIMBER

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 4, line 32, at end, insert "but nothing in this Act contained shall prevent the use and appropriation by the incumbent and churchwardens of such churchyard, or any part or parts thereof, from time to time for the repair, enlargement, or re-construction of the church, or parsonage, or schools, or the erection of further buildings for the service of the church, or for better access to such church or other buildings aforesaid, or for any other purposes of the church, wished before moving it to ask the Solicitor General in whom the legal estate of closed churchyards would vest, oven supposing that the expense of maintenance and repair was undertaken by the Parish Council? The clause must be read in conjunction with Clause 5, which said in Sub-section (c)— The legal interest in all property vested either in the Overseers or in the Churchwardens and Overseers of a rural parish, other than property connected with the affairs of the Church, shall, if there be a Parish Council, vest in that Council, subject to all trusts and liabilities affecting the same, and all persons concerned shall make or concur in making such transfers, if any, as are requisite for giving effect to this enactment. There were many disused churchyards which, although they might not be available for burials, might be used for extending the parish church.

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, the legal estate of the closed churchyard would, no doubt, vest in the Incumbent. He would point out that the Disused Burial Ground Act would prevent building on a closed churchyard. The Legislature had seen fit to preserve closed burial grounds against encroachment by budding.

MR. WHARTON

said that, after the generous concession of the President of the Local Government Board, he did not propose to move the Amendment in his name, which was on all-fours with that portion of the Irish Church Act which gave to the Church authorities the closed churchyards adjoining the churches.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is out of Order.

MR. BOUSFIELD

What is the objection to it?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member proposes to transfer these powers in an altered form, which is out of Order.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, he did not propose to transfer the powers in an altered form, but in a restricted form. If necessary, he could alter the Amendment and propose to transfer the powers as they stood at present.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member would be in Order if he did that.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, he would propose the Amendment in the following form:— To insert, at the end of line 32, "The powers and duties given to and imposed, upon the Churchwardens and Overseers of the poor by the statutes of the forty-third year of Elizabeth, chapter two, section one, the fifty-ninth year of George the Third, chapter twelve, section twelve, and the first and second years of William the Fourth, chapter forty-two, in whomsoever such powers and duties may now be vested.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I should like to raise another point of Order. The hon. Member proposes to transfer powers and duties given to Churchwardens and Overseers by a series of Acts of Parliament, although those powers have been transferred to Boards of Guardians. There are no such powers as are now mentioned in the Churchwardens and Overseers. Whatever powers they had have been transferred under the Poor Law Act for the benefit of Guardians.

MR. BOUSFIELD

remarked, that the Poor Law Act mentioned only the powers conferred by the 59th of George III. and the 1st & 2nd of William IV. As far as he could find, the Act did not transfer the powers and duties imposed upon Churchwardens and Overseers by the 43rd of Elizabeth. The point, however, was met by the phrase he had inserted— In whomsoever such powers and duties may now be vested. If they were vested in the Guardians he proposed to transfer them from the Guardians; and if they were vested in the Churchwardens and Overseers, to transfer them from them.

THE CHAIRMAN

The President of the Local Government Board is quite right in saying that with regard to the 59th of George III. and the 1 & 2 William IV. these powers were transferred to Boards of Guardians, and I must, therefore, call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that all that remains of the Amendment relates to the powers and duties conferred on the Overseers and Churchwardens by the Statute of Elizabeth.

MR. BOUSFIELD

understood it had not been ruled out of Order to propose to transfer the power vested in Boards of Guardians.

THE CHAIRMAN

That part of the proposal is out of Order on this clause, and must come up, if at all, on the other part of the Bill.

* MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, that the powers imposed upon the Churchwardens and Overseers under the Act of 43 Elizabeth were transferred from them to the Guardians by the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, Section 21.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is conclusive. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot move the Amendment on this clause.

MR. BOUSFIELD

submitted that the matter did not rest upon the mere ipse dixit of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Dodd). He (Mr. Bousfield) had looked into the matter, and had come to the conclusion that there had been no express transfer of the powers conferred by the Act of Elizabeth. The question he wished to raise was, whether Parish Councils should be enabled to deal in their own districts with the relief of those persons who were not able-bodied?

THE CHAIRMAN

I must again remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the best conclusion I have been able to come to is, that these powers have been transferred to the Boards of Guardians, and, therefore, the Amendment cannot be made on this clause.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

pointed out that the Statute of William IV. was not one dealing with the relief of the poor, but one for the relief of industrious cottagers or journeymen, and that it empowered the Vestry to give such persons what were really allotments of a quarter or half an acre.

THE CHAIRMAN

All I rule at present is, that the Amendment cannot be moved on this clause.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

May I ask you, Mr. Mellor, if you rule that nothing dealing with the powers of Boards of Guardians can come on on this clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

No; that is not my ruling. My ruling is that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman cannot be moved now.

MR. BOUSFIELD

May I point out that——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The matter is now settled.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 4, line 35, leave out "by them," and insert "or objections. In page 5, line 1, after "holding," insert "or management.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN moved, in page 5, line 1, to leave out "parish property or." He said, his intention was subsequently to move the insertion after "of," in the third line, of the words "any property which is used solely for the purpose of any power, duty, or liability transferred to the Parish Council under this Act, or of." He pointed out that the expression "parish property" was very vague, and said that it included a large amount of ecclesiastical property, and that there was no definition of parish property in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 1, to leave out the words "parish property or."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was quite willing, if the hon. Member thought it necessary, to include in the clause the words— not being property relating to the affairs of the Church, or held as an ecclesiastical charity.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he would, in that case, withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

then moved the insertion of the words he had mentioned.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 1, after "property," to insert the words "not being property relating to the affairs of the Church, or held as ecclesiastical charity."—(Mr. H. H. Fowle.)

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

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he did not quite see how property could relate to "affairs."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

These are words which have been used over and over again. We propose to repeat the words which the hon. Member will see in this very clause.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

That is no answer to me.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

suggested that it would he desirable to allow the subsection to finish with the words of the Amendment. "Parish property" would, he believed, cover village greens, allotments, recreation grounds, gardens, or any other property belonging to the parish. He did not think it was necessary to limit the whole scope of the subsection by the words "for the benefit of the poor," because there was a good deal of parish property held not for the benefit of the poor but upon trusts beneficial to the parish generally.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

pointed out that there were a large number of field gardens allotted under the Commons Acts, which would conic under none of the designations mentioned in the subsection. Were they intended to be put into the hands of the Parish Council?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

, in reply, recited the sub-section as it would read as amended.

* SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, that in his part of the country many allotments were held by small tradespeople, who could not, however, be called "poor." He thought the word should be "inhabitants."

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked if the right hon. Gentleman or the Solicitor General would tell them what was meant by the term "poor"? He took it that a great part of the powers conferred by this clause related to persons who by no means were placed in the category of what was generally known as "the poor." He thought that if these powers conferred by this clause were confined to what was generally known as "the poor" a great many of the duties would remain undischarged.

MR. DODD

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should put in the words "for the benefit of 'the inhabitants or the' poor."

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

said, the case would be met by omitting the word "otherwise."

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

thought they ought to leave out the words "for the benefit of the poor," because all the inhabitants might enjoy the village green, and other things. Moreover, in his part of the country many of the inhabitants had allotments who would not be classed amongst the poor to whom his hon. Friend referred. He thought they ought to omit the words "for the benefit of the poor," and he would move that they be omitted.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment before the Committee must first be disposed of.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved the following Amendment:— In page 5, line 2, before the word "allotments," to insert the word "of.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved the following Amendment:— In page 5, line 2, after the word "allotments," to insert the word "whether.

Amendment agreed to.

* MR. T. H. BOLTON

, who had the following Amendment on the Paper—in page 5, line 2, to leave out "allotments for"—said, he did not propose to move the Amendment, but merely to make this observation: that, as a general term which covered all descriptions of property was used, he did not see why special property should be particularly mentioned.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the hon. Member's Amendment came before the word "whether," and therefore, having been passed, it could not be moved.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he thought he ought to move the omission of the words "for the benefit of the poor."

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he had an Amendment that came before that, and he proposed to move to leave out the word "otherwise."

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 2, to leave out the word "otherwise."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

thought it would be rather dangerous to leave out that word, as they wanted to cover all these allotments and recreation grounds, and therefore he would rather keep the word in.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, it was really a question of drafting; and though he would not press his opinion against that of the draftsman, he would point out that it widened rather than narrowed the subsection to leave out that word.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, that keeping in the word "otherwise" restricted the meaning of the previous words. The allotments and recreation grounds must be allotments and recreation grounds for the benefit of the poor, and striking out the word "otherwise" would enlarge the scope of the sub-section.

MR. PERKS (Lincolnshire, Louth)

said, it appeared to him the words "or otherwise" were in the wrong place, and he would suggest that they should be tacked on at the end of the clause.

SIR R. WEBSTER

pointed out that in that way the words would have no meaning whatever.

Question put, and agreed to.

*SIR J. GOLDSMID moved to leave out the words "for the benefit of the poor," and insert "inhabitants."

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 3, to leave out the words "for the benefit of the poor", and insert the word "inhabitants."—(Sir J. Goldsmid.)

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

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, he had been asked for an explanation of the word "poor." It had certainly been used in many Acts concerning the industrious who were not rich. The poor industrious people who are not being relieved out of the rates, and "poor" there meant they were not very well off. If hon. Members would consider, that was no doubt what they meant themselves when they talked of the poor; if they meant anything different they meant something he did not understand. There were several Acts in which the word was used. For instance, the 1 & 2 William IV. c 42— Where there may be enclosed any part of the common, and improvements for the use and benefit of the parish, and the poor persons within the parish or like parts of it, to any poor and industrious inhabitants. That was one of the cases in which they wanted to give the management to the Parish Council. Take another case. The General Enclosure Acts provided for enclosures for the purposes of exercise and recreation. He doubted whether that would be called parish property, but the management of it ought to be in the Parish Council. Under the same Act, and a more recent instance of the Enclosure Acts— Allotments may be made to Churchwardens and Overseers for recreation grounds and for field gardens for the labouring poor.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I will accept the word "inhabitants."

SIR J. GOLDSMID

was glad the right hon. Gentleman intended to accept the Amendment, but he wished to say he entirely disagreed with the extraordinary definition they had just heard from the Solicitor General.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman quite realised what he had accepted, because the result would be that if there happened to be land specially held for the benefit of the poor, the management would not be wholly transferred.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

suggested that all would be met if they left out the word "poor" and said, For the benefit of all or any of the inhabitants.

MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD (Warwick, Stratford)

said, he knew certain cases in his own neighbourhood where the object of the hon. Member would be defeated by accepting the word "in habitants." In his neighbourhood there were certain lauds which belonged to the poor; they were not suitable for their purposes, and, therefore, the lands were let to other persons, and the money that came in from them was invested in coal for the benefit of the poor during the winter months. If the word "inhabitants" were used anyone might come forward and claim to have the enjoyment of that benefaction of coal. He could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman's own words "for the benefit of the poor" were better than any that could be substituted.

SIR J. GOLDSMID

thought that could hardly be so, as the inhabitants meant all or some of them, and the poor were inhabitants as well as those better off. If the charity was left to any particular section, the Parish Authorities must administer that for the benefit of those for whom it was left.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

said, it appeared to him to be rather hard on the Solicitor General, after the explanation they had just listened to and the extreme appropriateness of the words, that the right hon. Gentleman should get up without a moment's hesitation and propose to accept the proposal that "inhabitants" should be inserted. If they made it for the benefit of the inhabitants a result would be arrived at which hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House never contemplated. If they put in "for the benefit of the inhabitants," amongst others who would be benefited by the Act would be the squire and the parson. If they lived in the parish, they were inhabitants of the parish, and to say that this property was to be held in any sense for their benefit seemed to fly in the face of the whole object of the Bill. But, besides that, he had a greater difficulty on the definition of the Solicitor General. Who were the poor? In the sense in which that was used, the Solicitor General said they were any people who were industrious and who were not rich. Here, again, they arrived at the very persons they wished to exclude. They knew that, generally speaking, those who were industrious were not rich; but they arrived again at the parson, a person very industrious, and "passing rich on forty pounds a year." Neither of the words were fit for the purpose, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman had better re-consider the whole subsection.

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

asked why they should have in any words after the word "gardens"?

MR.H. H. FOWLER

said, the remarks of the Solicitor General were made in answer to an hon. Gentleman opposite who asked for a definition of the word "poor." They considered the word "poor," in the first instance, the better word; it was objected to by Members on both sides of the House, and as possibly there were allotments and gardens that were held not exclusively for the benefit of the poor, they thought they ought to have a wider definition, and he therefore proposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Sir J. Goldsmid). "Inhabitants" would include both poor and rich; therefore, he did not propose to re-consider the point, but should vote for the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

asked, if it was intended only to include the word "inhabitants," as he thought it should be "inhabitants or any class thereof."

Question, "That the word 'poor' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the word 'inhabitants' be there inserted."

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he thought the point taken by the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway (Sir C. W. Dilke) deserved consideration, as he thought that the words "or any other class thereof" ought to be introduced.

SIR C. W. DILKE moved the addition of those words.

Amendment proposed, To add to the last Amendment the words "or any other class thereof."—(Sir C W. Dilke.)

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, before any Amendment was moved to the subsection (d) he would like to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be more convenient—after the expression to which the right hon. Gentleman had already given utterance, and in accordance with the ruling the Chairman had laid down in connection with other Amendments—for this sub-section to be reserved for Part II. of the Bill, where it would certainly be more appropriate? This sub-section distinctly took away the power now exercised by Boards of Guardians.

MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

, on a point of Order, asked what the question was before the Committee?

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand the right hon. Gentleman is moving to leave out the sub-section.

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

said, he had an Amendment before that.

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought that his came before that of the hon. Gentleman's as a matter of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

As a matter of Order, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is entitled to precedence.

COMMANDER BETHELL

thought the right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised that his Amendment was upon the question of the Sanitary Authority; it could hardly be expected that a Bill of this nature could pass through the House without some attempt being made to deal with the vexed question of the sanitary powers exercised throughout the country. The Amendment he had placed on the Paper must be read in conjunction with the new clause he had placed on the latter part of the Papers. That clause, however, was not in the hands of hon. Members at present, as only a portion of the Papers were printed; and he would, therefore, state generally what the substance of the clause was. The Amendment proposed to transfer the sanitary powers in respect of all matters for which a rural parish might be a contributory place from the present Sanitary Authority to the new Parish Council or parish meeting. Then, to meet certain objections, he proposed his new clause, that all the general powers, duties, and responsibilities now exercised by Boards of Guardians should be transferred to the County Council. And then, again, to meet a further objection to which he should have to allude, he proposed that the ultimate power to prevent retrogression in sanitary affairs should rest in the County Council. He would remind the Committee that both the President of the Local Government Board and the Secretary of that Board, within the limits of this very Debate, had themselves declared that the sanitary powers as exercised by the existing Sanitary Authority were unsatisfactory and had failed, and it was not only the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who had said so, he had frequently amongst his own friends heard the same declaration made that unfortunately the existing Sanitary Authorities had broken down. He did not personally pledge himself to any opinion on this subject, but he moved his Amendment because he felt, whether these existing Sanitary Authorities had broken down or not, there was little doubt they would not get a sanitary administration that was at once effective and economical unless they had placed the power in the first instance in the hands of those persons who were chiefly concerned, that was to say, in the hands of the parish voter. He should say that primâ facie, every consideration was in favour of his Amendment. The Amendment proposed, in the first instance, that the people of the parish should themselves have the power of taking a decision on sanitary mutters, and in order to prevent retrogression in sanitary matters, he proposed that the ultimate powers of promoting the general sanitation of the parish should reside in the County Council. What objection, he would ask, could there be to the transfer of power from the present District Authority to the Parish Authority? The system they were introducing, "One Mau One Vote," and so on, would have the effect of so altering the Local Authorities that that which they had done badly in the past would be done well in the future. Me would now look at the two main objections that were always taken by sanitary reformers to the reducing the area over which sanitary powers were exercised. The question of expense was the greatest objection urged to the narrowing of the area, yet the question of expense had no real existence. Every sanitary work now undertaken in a parish or village was paid for by that parish or village just as much us if the power were transferred to the Parish Council. There could be no doubt whatever there was no saving of expense to any parish or village under the existing system, because whatever was done had to be paid for by those for whom the work was done. It was true there was certain expenditure in connection with the medical officer and two or three officials, but there was no conceivable reason that he could see why the expense of these officers and the operation of the Acts should not be charged on the County Council. The second objection upon which sanitary reformers laid stress was that by narrowing the area for sanitary work the existing system, imperfect as it was, would retrogress, the people in the villages would allow if to fall back. Whether that were true or not he could not say, and he did not think any one else could say, but be put it to the Committee that the most likely way of getting their villages satisfactorily looked after would be by invoking the aid of the people themselves. Why did they suppose they were more likely to get an interest taken in the work by men foreign to the locality than by the people who dwelt within it? That was an argument he believed that was entirely without foundation. He admitted it would be most unfortunate if the sanitary work, imperfect as it was, should be allowed to go back, and by the clause he had placed on the Paper he proposed to give the ultimate power for carrying out sanitary work into the hands of the County Council. He was aware that his Amendment was not favoured largely by the Committee. He knew that his hon. Friends did not care much about this Amendment; but he would not have thought that the hon. Member for Sunderland, and hon. Gentlemen who associated with him, would object to placing this most important power that could be exercised in the hands of the Parish Councils.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I am very sorry the hon. Member has introduced my name, for I am very strongly in favour of the views he is now expressing.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he apologised for referring to the hon. Gentleman. A laugh which came from the hon. Gentleman, when he had referred to the attitude of his hon. Friends with regard to this Amendment, struck him as not being a sympathetic laugh; but he was now glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman as an ally in the Debate, and was sure he could also count on assistance from hon. Gentlemen who were associated with the hon. Member for Sunderland. In his judgment, the Bill did very little in the way of simplifying local government. It seemed to him that in the improvement of local government their energies should be directed towards simplifying the bodies which administered local affairs. He was persuaded, from his experience of the country, that if they wanted to get a real interest taken in those locally and popularly Elected Bodies they should place upon them large responsibilities and considerable powers. The Committee should remember that the administrative powers in a county were not very large, and if they were to split those powers up amongst these bodies, it was obvious that each body had its powers so emaciated that it would be difficult to induce any keen interest in these bodies on the part of the people. He beseeched the Liberal Ministry not to be afraid of entrusting large powers of self-government to the people. It was very mournful to find within the four corners of the Bill so much unfortunate distrust of the Parish Authorities. He was certain that they could not make a better reform—a reform which would more evoke the assistance and sympathy of the people than if they were to divide these powers and responsibilities between as few Boards or Authorities as possible. He did not believe there was any earthly good or use in the constitution of the proposed District Councils. He believed the only effect of them would be to hamper and interfere with the powers and responsibilities of the other two great bodies—the County Councils and the Parish Councils. Though he could not rely on getting a very great deal of support for his Amendment, he thought it his duty to lay his views on the subject before the Committee. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 3, after the word "poor," to insert the following sub-sections:—"(d) The powers, duties, and liabilities of the Rural Sanitary Authority in respect of all matters for which a rural parish may be a contributory place; (e) The appointment of Inspectors of Nuisances."—(Commander Bethell.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I appreciate the motive which induced the hon. Gentleman to place this Amendment on the Paper, and I am prepared to say that a great deal may be urged in support of the view he entertains. But it means a reconstruction of our sanitary system; an extension of the powers of the County Council; the creation of Parish Councils with very different responsibilities, and much larger powers of expenditure than I, for one, am prepared to confer on them. At the present time the Rural Sanitary Authority is the authority responsible for till sanitary matters in the district over which they exercise their powers. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he desires to have two concurrent Sanitary Authorities in the district. His Amendment, therefore, means the disestablishment of the Rural Sanitary Authority and the transfer of their powers to the Parish Council. My foundation objection to the Amendment is that it would completely alter the con- struction of this Bill. Another objection is that these sanitary districts must be of a wide area in order to make the sanitary work effective. [Commander BETHELL: Why?] Surely it is obvious. Take the staff to begin with. You cannot carry out sanitary work without an engineering staff, a surveying staff, a Medical Officer of Health, and an Inspector of Nuisances. The hon. Gentleman says that all this might be left to the County Council. But that would throw the burden on the County Council of having to superintend the sanitary work of the county, which they cannot be asked to bear.

COMMANDER BETHELL

I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but that is not my scheme. It is on the Paper.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

And I say that the Parish Council has not the means and has not the staff by which it can discharge these sanitary powers. Then there is another consideration. In Clauses 14 and 15 we provide that a District Council may delegate to a Parish Council any power which may be delegated to a parochial committee under the Public Health Act, and we provide moans for dealing with the evil of which the hon. Gentleman complains. The Rural Sanitary Authority, I say deliberately and advisedly, have not done their duty. We want to make them do their duty. We propose to reconstruct them in the District Council; we propose to bring to hear on them new responsibilities and new constituencies: we propose by Clause 15 that where a Parish Council thinks a District Council has not done its sanitary work well they can appeal to the County Council, and we then give to the County Council the power to discharge these duties. We cannot, I say, accept a reconstruction of our Bill. This is a great experiment. I believe it will be a successful experiment. We are creating a new authority altogether, for which there is no exact parallel, at least at present, in our municipal organisation. We wish to extend to those localities many of the advantages of our Municipal Institutions. Let us, then, proceed slowly in this matter. When the Parish Councils have acquired and deserved the confidence not only of their constituents but of the nation at large, when they have shown themselves fitted to discharge their duties, as I am sure they will, Par- liament will rapidly extend to them further powers. But if we at present attempt to overweight these bodies with powers the thing will break down, and what otherwise would be a success will prove a failure. I want to proceed slowly and cautiously in this matter. I willingly accepted restrictions on the expenditure of these bodies, but these would go by the board at once if the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were accepted, for it involves large rating powers. Under those circumstances, while I appreciate the intentions of the hon. Gentleman, and recognise him as a reformer in sanitary matters, and while I do not deny that some day the scheme which he has foreshadowed may be carried out effectively, I do not think it would be wise at the present time to entertain such a proposal.

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

said, he was in entire agreement with the conclusion to which the President of the Local Government Board had come with regard to this Amendment, though he was not sure that he was in much accord with the reasons which had brought the right hon. Gentleman to that conclusion. He believed his hon. Friend the Member for Holderness would not secure by the adoption of his Amendment that improvement in local sanitary administration which he desired. There could be no doubt that there was a very huge field for reform in the administration of sanitary work generally in the rural districts. One great difficulty in the way of that reform was undoubtedly the present system of administration. Another and a more serious difficulty, and one less likely to be got rid of by the Amendment, was the difficulty of providing the means for doing the necessary sanitary work, because the districts in which the sanitary condition of things was worst were districts in which the decrease in the value of property was felt with greater severity, and in such districts it was manifestly more difficult to find the means of carrying out the necessary reforms. His hon. Friend had suggested that if his Amendment were adopted these reforms would be effected. With that he did not agree. He believed the three main reasons why sanitary administration in the rural districts had been so inefficient were because the Sanitary Authorities had never yet been able, first, to command the whole time of their officers, and those who served them; second, to secure men of the necessary ability and capacity; and third, to obtain the services of men completely independent, and therefore able to do the work with a sole regard for the public health. He thought these difficulties would be accentuated if they still further confined the area of the sanitary districts as his hon. Friend proposed. He shared in the general opinion that it might have been possible to reform our local administration without requiring authority, like the District Council, between the County Council and the Parish Council. But it was quite clear now that they could not engraft anything of that kind on the existing Bill. It would mean the reconstruction of an entirely new scheme, and he would regret that as a deplorable result, after all that Parliament had already done in regard to the Bill. Complaints had been made of the length at which the Opposition were discussing the Bill. But hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit that many of the provisions of the Bill touched interests to which the Conservative Party attached great importance, and therefore it was not to be wondered at that they had dwelt on these points with greater insistence than hon. Gentlemen opposite thought justified. But in these matters of public health everyone would admit that the discussions had been frank, free, and fair, and that the object which animated all quarters of the House was to make the Bill as perfect and as useful as possible. He was not prepared to recommend any recasting of the whole scheme of the Bill, for he believed the result would be disaster, and therefore he was opposed to the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, the Mover of the Amendment had declared that its rejection would mean a want of trust in the Parish Councils. But the same electors who elected the District Councils would elect the Parish Councils. The hon. Gentleman had also stated that the sanitary matters of a parish were the concern of that parish only. That was a mistake. The want of proper sanitary arrangements in a parish might do great damage to the health of a whole district. If there was one thing in which the communes of France and Switzerland broke down it was in their sanitary administration. In Switzerland he was brought to see a case in which a small commune which had a quarrel with a neighbouring commune had cut off the pipes which connected the two communes, with the result that all the filth was being discharged on a road separating the two districts, and he had been told that that state of things would remain until the question of the dispute had been settled. But under the provisions of the Bill the united parishes which formed a District Council had the power to overcome an obstinate parish in the district which declined to put its sanitary matters right. It had been well said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool that the parishes which most needed sanitary reform were the poor parishes; and as it would indeed be a hardship if those sanitary reforms were forced on small and poor parishes, perhaps some provision might be introduced into the Bill by which the richer parishes would help the poorer parishes.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, it would be well to have a provision in the Bill by which the District Councils would be required to submit any scheme of sanitary reform or of water supply to the parishes concerned for consideration before it was finally adopted. He believed that very satisfactory results would be obtained if there were constant communications in such matters between the District Council and the parishes.

SIR E. TEMPLE

said, he desired to say, on behalf of himself and his hon. Friends, that they were in favour of restricting the powers of the Parish Council in regard to sanitary matters and water supply, and entrusting those powers to the District Council.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he considered it a mistake to suppose that sanitary reforms could only be done in large areas. That idea was founded entirely on theory, and had no experience to back it. He believed the only true and economical reform would be found in placing the management of sanitary matters in the hands of the people themselves. He asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras will draft an Amendment embodying his proposal, which I think very reasonable, and put it down for Clause 15.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN

called upon Mr. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.) to move the next Amendment standing in his name, which was as follows:— In page 5, line 7, at end, add.—"(e) The powers, duties, and liabilities of Boards of Guardians with respect to enforcing school attendance.

MR. J. LOWTHEB (Kent, Thanet)

rose and said he wanted to make a, suggestion. [Cries of "Order!"]

* MR. STRACHEY

said he would like, first of all, to draw the attention of the Committee to the present stale of things in the counties.

MR. J. LOWTHER

, rising to a point of Order, said he desired to omit the whole of Sub-section (d), and that would come in front of (e).

THE CHAIRMAN

said that would come first.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that some little time back an Amendment was proposed the effect of which was to take front the Guardians certain powers now vested in them by statute, and to confer these powers upon the Parochial Authorities. Objection was taken to adopting that course on the ground that that was not a proper place for dealing with any matter affecting the Guardians. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit that if the classification was to be carrried out this Sub-section (d), which was now before the Committee, ought to be postponed until they came to Part II. He thought the light hon. Gentleman would admit that that was the ease, that it was precisely open to the objection which was taken to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Islington. The important question of conferring certain statutory powers upon the Parish Authorities was postponed, with general assent, until Part II. The right hon. Gentleman would see that unless his Bill was to be absolutely without any parallel in drafting some principle must be carried right through, and therefore he moved the omission of Sub-section (d).

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (d).—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

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

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

said, he did not think that this charge could be fairly brought against the Government. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hackney proposed to give powers to the Parish Council he was dealing with the administration of the Poor Law; but now what they were dealing with was a purely parochial matter. It happened that under the Act of Will. IV. the Guardians had the power given them to sell or exchange certain property belonging to the parish, and the sale was with the consent of the majority of the ratepayers, and with the approval of the Local Government Board. The proceeds of the sale were to be applied to purely parochial purposes. It was merely an accidental circumstance that the Guardians exercised these powers; this had nothing to do with the administration of Poor Law relief, and nothing to do with what the Government undertook to deal with in Part II. It was a mere accident that the Guardians had to be mentioned at all; it was purely a parochial question.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had scarcely explained the matter to the Committee. He was not now saying whether it was desirable or otherwise to confer the powers imposed by Parliament upon the Guardians upon the Parish Authorities instead. That was a matter of merits which he did not desire to touch. What he desired to touch upon was merely the formation of the Bill and the drafting of it. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had scarcely explained the position of the Government. He said the powers dealt with in the 43rd Eliz. and 59th Geo. III.——

SIR J. RIGBY

That has nothing to do with the matter.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had quoted these statutes. The statutes were referred to in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, and the hon. and learned Member said—and he accepted his statement as being tin authority—that every one of these statutes related solely to the administration of the duties of the Guardians—to the administration of the Poor Law. The hon. and learned Gentleman would not say that he had read all those statutes; but, at any rate, he had spoken with an authority which he (Mr. Lowther) would not attempt to gainsay. But the point remained, that the powers now conferred by the statutes upon the Guardians were an hour ago proposed to be transferred to the newly-constituted Parochial Authorities. They were precluded from considering that, and no doubt rightly. They were told that the place to consider any matter referred to the Guardians was in Part II. of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman would be responsible to posterity for the drafting of the Bill. He would now offer no further objection, and would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. STRACHEY

then moved his Amendment. He said, that the present state of things in the rural districts as regarded school attendance in the majority of cases was this—that the Attendance Committee of the Board of Guardians consisted of eight elected Guardians and four ex officio Guardians; but of late years those four had not been able to act, under certain decisions of the Law Courts, if they acted as Magistrates, in school attendance cases. The difficulty was that there was a small committee for a very large area consisting of what would be only eight members under this Bill. The duties of the present School Attendance Committees were very inefficiently carried out, and it was objectionable to parents to be summoned before Boards of Guardians, whilst great hardship was often imposed upon parents in having to walk great distances to comply with the summonses they received. He thought the Parish Council would conduct the business of the School Attendance Committee with much less friction, and with much more efficiency and with much greater satisfaction to the people themselves. As an example, the small rural School Boards, speaking from his own experience as a chairman of one of them, they worked admirably, and without any friction. He denied that his proposal was a reactionary one, and asserted that, on the contrary, it would give the keenest satisfaction to those who lived in the rural districts to have some control over the school attendance, and some power to look after the interests of the children. He moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 7, after the word "property," to insert the words "(e) The powers, duties, and liabilities of Boards of Gruardians with respect to enforcing school attendance."—(Mr. Strachey.)

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

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

said, he was afraid his hon. Friend would anticipate his reply, which had been made on more than one subject connected with this Bill—namely, that to introduce this question into the Bill would be to add another weight to the burden they had already to bear. He was very far from saying that the suggestion his hon. Friend had made was reactionary. He knew of nothing more important to bring about in rural parishes than an increase in the popular interest in education, and in the taking charge of the whole question, including the attendance of children at school, but it involved considerable difficulty. There were other matters of education belonging to the Guardians which ought to be dealt with at once—questions relating to industrial schools, questions oven relating to a Bill that he had passed this Session relating to the blind and deaf. Then there were certain Urban Sanitary Authorities which were School Attendance Authorities which would still remain unprovided for oven if this proposal were agreed to. Speaking generally, he thought he might say that if the Bill was passed as it now stood they might fairly hope that popularly-elected Boards of Guardians would take a greater interest than at present in the attendance. He might add that whatever their future arrangements might be there were already provisions in existence which popularly-elected Boards of Guardians in the future might reasonably take advantage of—namely, the power of handing over a, good deal of the work which rested in their hands as an Attendance Committee to Local Committees. As regarded the question of small School Boards, he was very glad to hear how admirably the system had worked in the experience of his hon. Friend, but he was sorry to say he knew of a good many small School Boards where the carrying out of the school attendance question was quite as bad as it was under any Attendance Committee. The hon. Member would understand the general grounds on which the Government were unable to accept the Amendment at the present time.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, he thought the proposal of the hon. Member for Somersetshire, so far from being reactionary, was eminently practical. They should do all they could to popularise what was always disagreeable—compulsory attendance. He did not think the reply of the Government convincing, because the duties that now devolved upon the Guardians in respect of industrial schools, and institutions for the blind and deaf and dumb, did not appertain to parish but to district institutions. He was in favour of the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, the one great reason why he would like to see the Amendment accepted was, that it was a, step towards removing all taint of pauperism from education. There was also the question of technical education, and it seemed to him that the Parish Council would be the very people to undertake that in some form or other.

MR. E. STANHOPE (Lincolnshire, Horncastle)

said, that there was no doubt considerable weight in the point which his right hon. Friend had just urged—that it was desirable to remove, all taint of pauperism from any provision relating to education; but, while allowing, full weight to that consideration, he thought that the Amendment would inflict injury on education in purely agricultural districts. He looked forward with some hope in the future to the institution of Parochial Committees, as regarded school attendance, but to hand over these powers to the Parish Council, and to take them away from the Boards of Guardians, would be simply to destroy that which they had already accomplished in the direction of securing school attendance, and, so far from improving it, it would be likely to make it worse. He was heartily glad that the Government had decided to oppose the Amendment.

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

said, he was sorry that the Government had not seen their way to accepting the Amendment. It was quite clear that the Parish Council on the spot would be better able to enforce attendance than Boards of Guardians sitting some miles away. This was purely a parochial matter, and if the Parish Council did not do their duty they would merely damage themselves, and nobody else. He doubted whether the expense would be any greater, while a great amount of inconvenience would be saved. He trusted the hon. Member would press the Amendment to a Division.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE

observed, that some parishes had a serious grievance at the present time in consequence of the powers of school attendance being in the hands of the Poor Law Union. In the case of a Union with which he was specially connected, a Memorial signed by the principal people of many of the parishes of the Union was presented in favour of appointing more attendance officers; and the Guardians of the Union thought it right to lay that Memorial on the shelf, although the parishes had expressed their willingness to pay the extra expenses of the attendance officers. Such a state of things was most unsatisfactory, and he only hoped it would be found when these District Boards were made more popular and brought into more direct contact with the electors, as proposed in this Bill, there would be an entire change in the administration in this respect. With regard to the proposal now under discussion it would work admirably in the larger parishes, but he feared some of the smaller parishes would be worse off than before. He would suggest to the Vice President whether he might not do something in regard to a parish which wanted better school attendance officers, and was willing to pay for it, to require the district authority to appoint officers. That would remove some of the grievances which at present existed without disturbing radically the existing system.

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

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, as they desired to extend the powers of the parishioners throughout the country, they had sonic reason to complain of the obstruction offered to the Bill by the Government through their rejection of manifestly reasonable and proper Amendments. Nothing had been said which could be taken to be against the Amendment. What had been said by the Vice President should induce hon. Members to vote for, instead of against, the Amendment. He said it would add another weight to the Bill for giving powers to enforce attendance at school. But the weight was in the Bill already. If they gave the other powers to the Parish Council, why should they not give them this power also? The right hon. Gentleman said that they should deal with industrial and other schools together. What had those other schools to do with the ordinary school? There was no connection whatever; and he was warranted in saying that, when the right hon. Gentleman gave that as an argument, there was no reason why the Amendment should not be adopted. He (Mr. Gibson Bowles) was shocked to hear the late Minister for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) speak against the Amendment. He must, be forgetful of the true principles of the Tory Party, which were to preserve and enlarge the powers of the parishioners. The Government brought in a Bill allowing parish meetings and Parish Councils, and then proceeded, having launched their ship, to cut it down. They professed to give increased power; but it was now found that their object was not to do that, but rather to maintain all real power in the hands of other and superior bodies, especially the Local Government Board. He rejoiced to see that even on the Liberal side of the House there was a love of liberty which induced the moving of this Amendment. The present system of trying to secure school attendance was, admittedly, most unsatisfactory, and the reason of that was that the area over which the Boards of Guardians exercised supervision was too large. They desired to take it from the Guardians, and give it into the hands of the Parish Councils. It was manifest that the areas were far too large for the Guardians to control the attendance. They met in the towns long distances away from places they were supposed to control; and though they had sought to escape from the difficulty by appointing committees, the members of the committees were in the same position as the Guar- dians themselves, being distant from places where truancy occurred, and destitute of local knowledge. So long as they left the question to the bodies who had charge of it now, this would remain, and the only effective way, therefore, was to take the Amendment, which would give a smaller area, and let the Parish Councils look after the important matter of school attendance. Every man, woman and child would be known to the Parish Council, and, unless proper reasons were given, there would be no excuse for keeping away from school. The Councils would have knowledge that the Guardians could not possibly possess. They were in the proper position, and if there was one matter in which the Parish Council should be competent to judge it was this of the truancy of children. These arguments must commend the Amendment to the favourable consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was quite certain he would not repeat the argument of the Vice President. They did wish this Bill to pass, and pass rapidly; they also wished to improve it, and they hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would meet their views in a reasonable manner.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he thought the Committee was indebted to the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this Amendment, which he (Sir A. Rollit) supported in the interest of education. He also supported it in the interest of the Parish Council, for the first condition of its success was that that body should have plenty to do. Probably no greater obstacle to the success of the County Councils had arisen than that they had not sufficient or sufficiently important employment, and those who desired the extension of local government could not do it a better service than to take care that the work should be worthy of the time to be devoted to it. Every possible attraction should be offered to the best men to take part in the work. There could be no greater duty than the education of the people of the parish; and believing that this proposal would add to the value of the Bill, he did urge the Government to accept at least the principle of the Amendment. The carrying of such and similar proposals would give both duty and dignity to the Parish Councils, and this Amendment would remove one more anomaly in local government. The association of the administration of the Poor Law with education was in itself undesirable, and he could quite understand that the large area with which the Guardians had to deal was an impediment to the discharge of their duties with regard to education. The Guardians were a most unsuitable authority on many grounds. And if the work of education was limited to the parish there would be better means of securing parental sympathy. The question then became parochial: and educacation would be advanced by the sympathy of the parents. It had been said that this step would be reactionary.

MR. ACLAXD

Who said that?

SIR A. ROLLIT

I think the right hon. Gentleman himself said it.

MR. ACLAXD

I said exactly the opposite.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he at once accepted the correction; but some previous speaker made that statement. He urged, on the contrary, that the Amendment would be progressive and in the right direction. He hoped it was not yet too late to hope that the President of the Local Government Board might see that there was, and ought to be, the closest connection between the education of a locality and the administration of the parish. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President said that the matter might involve another rate. If there was one subject they must regret it was the too frequent references in the Debate to the possibility of increased expenditure. He was quite aware that the resources were limited. In the matter of education, however, parsimony was not economy; and he would still urge that they ought to entrust the control of education to these local bodies, who were most immediately interested in them.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there was one remark that fell from the hon. Member (Mr. Gibson Bowles) which he was glad to hear—that they on the otherside desired the Hill to pass, and pass rapidly. That statement was very welcome. He would, therefore, ask the Committee to come to a decision on the question. He defied anyone to add stronger reasons than had been given on the other side, and he did not think that, even if they protracted the Debate for another hour, anything new could be raised. The Vice President had expressed his sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and had shown that they could not introduce it in the Bill—that it would involve a great change, and require additional machinery. They bad said all they could, and he thought that everything had been said that was necessary.

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

said, he thoroughly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the course he proposed to take as to this Amendment; lint be thought that ho sometimes forgot that Debates on the Bill were not confined to that House. There was a great deal of interest taken outside the House in the Bill and in what was going on in the House. He would point out also that it did not come from this (the Opposition) side. It came from the Government side, and speeches had been made by hon. Members sitting on both sides. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would admit that if the progress of the Bill was delayed, and if time was a matter of great urgency, the fault was not to be laid on them (the Opposition) The fault must rest, he would not say on the right hon. Gentleman himself, but on the Government for Inning forced upon the House of Commons the consideration of that vastly important measure in an Autumn Session of a. very few weeks. A Bill like that ought to have the whole time of a Session for its consideration, he contended that the Amendment was a mistake, and that instead of carrying out the views of the hon. Member for Islington if carried, it would destroy that which tin; hon. Member desired, to accomplish. The hon. Member was anxious that in the small districts of the country a greater impetus should be, given to education. He (Mr. Long) bad understood the hon. Baronet to say that it would add dignity to the Parish Councils, and largely improve their position if they were charged with the duties of the Boards of Guardians in reference to school attendance. Had the hon. Member considered what those duties were? So far from their adding dignity, they would be difficult, invidious, and frequently very odious duties. They would not he the arbiters of the course of education in the parish, but, it would simply rest with them, through their officers, to secure the attendance of children at school. The Amendment would tend to multiply the officers to be employed by the Parish Councils, and, consequently to increase of expenditure. He was as strongly in favour as anyone could be, either in the House or out of it, of an extension of the parochial system of government, and of giving to these new Parish Councils wisely-considered powers; but he was against, and should oppose at every stage, any attempt to force on the parish authority increased expenditure and the employment of an increased number of officers. Everyone who was conversant with the way in which this work was done must know that there was only one way of securing the attendance of children at school, and that was by the labours, and the discharge very often of very disagreeable duties, by school attendance officers. The work of these officers was practically prying into the daily lives of their neighbours, and that was not a proceeding which was likely to add much dignity to the Council. It was better that the work should be left to the larger area of the Boards of Guardians. In the parishes the districts were so small that the officers would be brought into daily contact with the population, and then-relations with the population would be so close that it would be difficult and, at times, impossible to perform the duties satisfactorily. Ho should oppose the Amendment, and he hoped that if a Division were taken a majority would decide that these powers should not be added to the Parish Councils.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for North Islington I hat it was by bestowing different duties and greater responsibilities on these Councils that those bodies could be dignified. He was afraid he could not agree with the hon. Member below him (Mr. Long) in some of the views he took as to the responsibilities of the Parish Councils.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 153.—(Division List, No. 3d2.)

MR. CHANNING

said, he begged to move— To insert at the end of Sub-section (d) the following words:—A Parish Council shall have the same power of making any complaint or representation as to unhealthy dwellings or obstructive buildings as is conferred on in- habitant honseholders by 'The honsing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,' but without prejudice to the powers of such honseholders. The object of the Amendment was to establish a connecting link between the Parish Councils and the machinery constructed under the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1890, which he was sure the Committee would assent to. Under the Act of 1890 representations could be made to the Sanitary Authorities by a certain number of honseholders practically compelling the Act to be put in force. The first part of the Amendment would have the effect of giving the Parish Councils that power, and the second of reserving the existing power of the honseholders. There was a second section of the Amendment as follows:— A Parish Council shall have, in respect of the adoption of part three of 'The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,' the powers conferred upon a Rural Sanitary Authority by the first Sub-section of Section 55 of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,' but without, prejudice to the powers of the District Council, and the same procedure shall apply as if the Parish Council were the Rural Sanitary Authority. This part of the Amendment would raise an important question. He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would sec his way to accept the first part; but as to the second, on full consideration, it did not seem as effective a method of dealing with the problem as that which, it was to be hoped, would be adopted in the not remote future—that of providing healthy cottages held by the elected representatives of the parishioners and not by private holders. That problem was a great one, which he did not despair of seeing dealt with in some way in the course of the proceedings on the Bill. He thought he should be well advised if he deferred moving the second part of the Amendment and brought it up in the form of a new clause on the lines of a provision in the Labourers (Ireland) Act.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 7, at end. insert,—"(2) A Parish Council shall have the same power of making any complaint or representation as to unhealthy dwellings or obstructive buildings as is conferred on inhabitant householders by 'The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,' lint without prejudice to the powers of such honseholders."—(Mr. Channing.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member had rightly divined the answer he should be obliged to give the proposal. He could not accept the second part it' the hon. Member moved it, but the first part he thought a desirable addition to the Bill. At the present lime four honseholders could make a. representation to the Sanitary Authorities, and he thought it desirable that the Parish Councils should have the same power.

MR. J. LOWTHER

What is an "obstructive" building?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

fie would see the word defined in the Act passed by the late Administration. It was a building, though healthy and fit for habitation itself, which stopped the ventilation of other honses or otherwise rendered them until for residence.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

said, the fact that it would he open to four honseholders to move in this matter would render the Parish Council less likely to consider it to be its duty to move. He wished to see this duty imposed on the Parish Council, and he would, therefore, suggest that they should stand in lieu of the four parishioners.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had considered the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government did not desire that the Bill should contain disenfranchising clauses. Therefore, they had come to the conclusion that the four honseholders should retain the power to take action with regard to unhealthy dwellings which they possessed under the Act of 1890. The Parish Council might decline or might not desire to interfere. He agreed that it would he undesirable to have two executive authorities, but in this matter the four parishioners would not la; an executive authority.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he did not wish to embark in any disfranchising proposal. He was glad to hoar that from a Member of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I said in this Bill.

MR. J. LOWTHER

hoped that the reservation "in this Bill" would not be observed too strictly. He should like to accept it as a general annunciation of sound Constitutional opinion on the part of Her Majesty's Government. [Cries of "Question!"] As to the Amendment, to make it consistent with common sense, the words But without prejudice to the powers of such honseholders should be omitted. The Amendment would simply give the Parish Council equal power with four honseholders. Why, suppose a party in the Council wanted to set the Act in motion and were defeated, all they would have to do on leaving the Council Chamber would be to sign a piece of paper and have their view carried out in defiance of the majority. It was ridiculous to say that the Parish Council was to he entitled in its corporate capacity to discharge functions which any four of its members in their private capacity could perform. He should not object to conferring these powers on the Parish Council, but he thought the last part of the Amendment should be left out.

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, there was good reason for retaining the double authority. While the Parish Councils might act on general and public grounds, the four honseholders might act in consequence of some special grievance which might not be likely to come under the cognisance of the Public Authority.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not see why they should have the surplusage in the Bill of giving these powers to the Parish Councils as well as to the four honseholders.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he would move to add, at the end of Subsection (d), the following words:— And the powers, duties, and liabilities of the School Board wherever a School Board has been established. The foundation and root of the whole Bill, he understood, was to unify and simplify our Local Authorities. Well, they had in each parish where there was a School Board over precisely the same area, elected by the same persons, though under different franchises, three; authorities. He thought that it was better that in rural parishes where School Boards existed the powers of such Boards should be transferred to the Parish Councils. He objected to elections ad, hoc, as those for School Boards wore; therefore, he should desire to see all the local work transacted by the Parish Council. Wherever there was a double authority in the same area there was sure to be conflict of interest and friction. The arguments for the Amendment had been enforced by what had passed in Committee. They had already given to the Parish Council the right not only to use for themselves the Board schools, but to grant the user of them to others, so that there would be two authorities over the Board schools. As an instance of the confusion which would occur in relation to these schools, he would point out that rive Parish Council candidates might require the use of a room—on different days, of course. The Parish Council would have to hold a meeting to consider the applications, and they would have to send word to the School Board, who would have to deliberate in the matter, having the requirements of technical education and evening continuation classes to consider. So that for every meeting to be held in the schoolroom two other meetings would have to be held. They might, at the same time, have the Local Government Board applying for the use of the room, and a contested election might occur for the Council itself. This would involve the School Board and the Council in the greatest confusion, the whole of which might be avoided by the adoption of the Amendment, merging the School Board in the Parish Authority.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 7, at end, add "and the powers, duties, and liabilities of the School Board wherever a School Board has been established." —(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

MR. ACLAND

said, that a very few minutes ago they decided by a majority of 125 not to introduce the subject of education into the Bill, he could hardly suppose that the hon. Gentleman wished to embark in any serious discussion on the question. The Amendment would cause serious confusion in the Act of 1870, as it would give them two kinds of elections, some with the cumulative vote and some without—some with one kind of electorate and some with another. It would be impossible to accept the Amendment.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, ho hon. Member would not press his Amendment. If the School Board were merged in the Parish Council it might mean that where there was a Parish Council there would also be a School Board; and then those who were in favour of the continuance of voluntary schools would be caught in a trap. He thought, however, that the Parish Council might well have a, voice on the question of the continuance or establishment of a School Board. He put forward his view quite irrespective of other arguments which might be brought against the proposition.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, it should be remembered that Parish Council elections would afford no representation of minorities. He should not like to disestablish a body elected under the cumulative vote.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, the idea embodied in the Amendment had originated with the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. ACLAND

said, that that was not the case. He had had some conversation on the subject with the Leader of the Opposition; and the point he raised on the Second Beading Debate was that when a Resolution was passed in favour of the establishment of a School Board it should be passed by one of these Local Authorities.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, that that was not what he had understood. He would point out that where the Parish Council could do the work of the School Board the parish would be saved the trouble of an election by the merging of the two bodies. The members who would be elected on a Parish Council would be almost the same, if not quite the same, gentlemen who would be elected members of the School Board. They might, therefore, just as well do the work of the School Board and save the parish an election. There would be no difficulty of a legislative or administrative character to overcome. There was no absurdity about the Amendment, which was a sound and practical one.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Wood-bridge)

said, there were some on that (the Ministerial) side of the House who would gladly have joined in supporting the Amendment if it had been pressed to a Division. They were desirous of giving the parish the management of as many of its own affairs as they could. The more important the matters they entrusted it with the better the chance of getting a good Parish Council and good work done on it. He was sorry the Government had not seen their way to accept the Amendment. There might be difficulties in the way, hut undoubtedly they could have been surmounted. Members on the Opposition side were troubled by no fear that the adoption of such a course would pave the way to bringing the national schools under the control of the village people. That was a goal towards which they were working. They hoped in time to see all the education of the village under the control of the people of the village.

Question put, and negatived.

SIR R. TEMPLE moved to leave out Sub-section (3), which he said was quite unnecessary. The arrangements made by Parliament in successive Acts with regard to allotments were working quite well, and did not need to be supplemented. They had, indeed, produced the most magnificent results. Hundreds of thousands of allotments had been given without any application of compulsion. Why, then, give the proposed additional power? It was proposed that the applications should now be made by a Public Body in which the class of allotment-holders would have a predominance, and we should therefore have the spectacle of a Public Body, consisting largely of interested persons, making applications on their own behalf. Ho did not know whether those who had framed this Bill happened to have allotments of their own. He had, and be knew exactly how they worked. He bad found that they could be given by a landlord with great advantage. Applications were now made privately without the exercise of the least compulsion, and the whole business was arranged with perfect harmony on the part of all persons concerned. This was what happened in Ids part of the country, and he did not suppose that the people there were better than their neighbours. This sub-section might throw an apple of discord into places where the relations between landowners and labourers were now quite harmonious.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (3.)—(Sir R. Temple.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."

* THE SECRETARY to the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,) Derby, Ilkeston

said that the Amendment was not desirable. He could see no reason why the Committee should be asked to refuse to a Parish Council the power of making representations on behalf of the inhabitants of the parish. The honseholders would still retain their power of independent action, but would gain this additional power of acting through the Council, when they wished. It was only reasonable that-the members of a Parish Council, the representative authority, should be empowered to make representations on behalf of those by whom they were elected.

* MR. H. HOBHOUSE

thought it would be well to accept the Amendment from another point of view. It seemed to him that it would be, very extraordinary to deal with allotments in two different sections of the Bill, and that it would be far better if the Government wished to amend the Allotments Acts that they should do it all in one section. This sub-section gave the Parish Council not only the right of making a representation with respect to allotments, but the power of applying for the election of allotment managers. Then, in the next sub-section, it was stated that the Parish Council was to take the place of the allotment managers, and that there were to be no managers in parishes where there was a Parish Council. He should have thought that it would have been better to have dealt with the whole question on Clause 9. It would certainly be impossible to understand the bearings of the Allotments Acts if the two clauses were passed in their present shape. The Government had put on the Paper a most important proposal for giving the Parish Council power to hire land, and this would in many eases supersede the power of making representations.

MR. E. STANHOPE

There is a great deal in what the hon. Member has just said. Hitherto we have been able to have all the powers relating to allotments within the compass of one Act and an amending Act, and I think it is exceedingly desirable, if we are to deal with the question of allotments in this Bill, that we should put all the provisions on the subject as far as possible in one portion of it in order that those who may have to deal with allotments may be able to see at once what additional powers are given.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

said, there was no doubt that the sub-section was very badly drafted. One anomaly that might arise under it was that a representation made by a number of parochial electors to a District Council or a Salutary Authority might be held to be invalid, because it contained only the names on the Parliamentary Register. Another anomaly was that while the Parish Council was to take the place of the allotment managers, the latter were elected for three years, and the former only for one year. Parish Councillors might, therefore, act for one year as allotment managers and might refuse to act as allotment managers during the years of office of their successors. He thought it would be desirable to adopt the suggestion of the last speaker, and re-draft all the sections of the Pill relating to allotments. If there was one question which interested the parochial electors more than another, and one on the law of which there ought to be no doubt, it was the question of allotments. There was no question with which Parish Councils would have to deal which ought to be so plainly and distinctly stated as that of allotments. An Amendment of which he had given notice on this subject had been ruled out of Order, but he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Pill would at some subsequent stage endeavour to make the allotments provisions a little clearer than they were at present.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he did not think the sub-section was worth considering. It was only one of those things that were put into the Pill to tickle the ears of the electors. He did not think the Committee could object to Parish Councillors having the power conferred by the Act of 1887 on inhabitants simply, inasmuch as the inhabitants were still to retain their power. That power had been of real benefit to the labourers. There were many places where the majority of the people did not want allotments, and under the Act of 1887 a small number of persons could make representations with the object of securing them. The thing that made labourers absolutely certain of getting allotments was the provisions thus made in the interests of a minority. The sub-section was one of those things that were put into the Pill with the object of persuading labourers that something of a wonderful character was going to be done for them by the measure, whereas it really amounted to nothing. It was the greatest testimony to the efficacy of the Act of 1887 that the Government had found it necessary to put in the words "without prejudice to the power of those electors." One knew very well that the Government would not go so far as to ruin the profits of the electors by substituting the visionary powers contained in the sub-section for the positive powers of the Act of 1887. There remained the question whether it would not be better to put the provision into Clause 9.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the question the Committee had to ask themselves was whether they were justified in making themselves a party to the introduction of provisions into the Pill by the Government for popularity-hunting and vote-catching purposes. It was a perfect, sham for the Government to say that by this provision they were conferring powers upon the ratepayers, and those whom they elected to the Parish Councils. Under the existing Statute any six ratepayers who met by the roadside had these powers; and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley bad said, he would not be a. party to the taking away of the bonâ fide powers which were already conferred on the inhabitants by the Statute in operation for the nebulous provision in the Pill. What did the Government mean by inserting this sub-section at all? Would any good result from it? Was it not an attempt to secure popularity by pretending to do something when they were really doing nothing at all? The sub-section was a good illustration of the happy-go-lucky, hugger-mugger, haphazard style in which the Government did things.

* SIR W. FOSTER

said, that the subsection simply gave the representative body the elementary right of acting on behalf of the inhabitants. There might be cases in which the Parish Councils would not be willing to get allotments for the labourers, but in those cases the Bill preserved the right of the labourers to make the necessary representations themselves. On the other hand, the labourers might be unwilling to make an application themselves, and in that event the sub-section gave; them the opportunity of acting through their Parish Council.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that by giving this power to the Parish Council cases might occur where a small minority of labourers who wanted allotments might be debarred from having them. The majority in the parish might pass a resolution against the allotments which, if this provision were allowed to stand, might have the effect of depriving the minority of their allotments, which they had a right to get under the Allotments Act of 1887. He therefore thought that in the interest of labourers who were in a minority in a parish the power should still be left to six electors to move in the matter as provided by the Act of 1887.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he would regret to see the sub-section taken out of the Pill. He thought the Conservative Party found something to congratulate themselves on in the fact that, despite the enormous attacks made on the Allotments Act of 1887 and 1890 by hon. Gentlemen opposite, they did not now think it beneath them to engraft in this Bill some of the provisions of those Acts. All the Government proposed to do in this sub-section was to give to the electors of the Parish Council the same provision to make representation which was already given to any six Parliamentary electors under the Act of 1887. For his part, he thought the sub-section would undoubtedly be used where labourers were in a majority and where the Parish Council were unwilling to act on their behalf.

* MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

said, that the first step to be taken by the County Council, on a representation being made to them, was to consider its bona fides, and it would be much better that the representation should come at first hand from those actually wanting the allotments; and not through the intermediate channel of a Parish Council; which might put forward a, representation on the subject in absolute bona fides, but without any real knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and without the responsibility of those who had to attach their names to a Petition.

Sir R. TEMPLE

said, it bad been implied that the Labourers might be unwilling to apply for allotments. His experience of farm labourers, in the West of England at any rate, was that they had never been at all backward in making such applications, and that to say otherwise was a libel on their strength of will and independence. He was one of the few Members of the House who had given up allotments under the Act. The labourers of his district first went to the Guardians for allotments, but did not get them, and they then came to him and got them at once. After the expression of opinion he bad elicited, especially from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley, whom be regarded as the first authority on the subject in the honse, he would not press the Amendment.

MR. ARCH (Norfolk, N.W.)

said, he differed widely from what had been said by the right hon. Member for Bordesley. He knew that in scores of parishes half-a-dozen men had over and over again applied for land and been unable to obtain it. As the Representative of the agricultural labourers from one end of England to the other, he declared that the Bill would give them the utmost, satisfaction, and he should vote for it, and go back to his constituents conscious of having done his duty.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE moved— In page 5, line 18, after "Council," to insert "or a Committee thereof. The object of the Amendment was to supply a deficiency in the drafting. By the Bill a Parish Council could not consist of less than five or more than 15 members. By the Allotments Act of 1887, the allotments managers were not less than three and more than five. Therefore, if the Parish Council acted as managers of allotments they would so act in contravention of an Act which had not been repealed. He, therefore, endeavoured by his Amendment to remedy that defect by allowing the Parish Council to appoint a committee to manage the allotments.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 18, after the word "Council," to insert the words "or a committee thereof." —(Mr. Radcliffe Cooke.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Gentleman has complained very severely of the drafting of the Bill. The draftsmen of the Bill cannot attend in the House to defend themselves. Both are very distinguished servants of the Crown. The Bill may be right or may be wrong. That is a question to be fought out here; but I cannot allow reflections on the professional ability of the gentlemen who have drawn up this Bill. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill. He says it does not give power to the Parish Council to appoint a committee. If he, will turn to Clause 34 he will find that a Parish Council may appoint a committee consisting wholly or partially of members of the Council, for the exercise of any powers which the Council think ought to be exercised by them. We, therefore, do not propose to accept the Amendment.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, he thought the question of appointing a committee was provided for; but ho desired to give the Parish Councils power not only to act as allotments managers themselves, but to appoint as allotments wardens more suitable persons than might be found amongst themselves. There might be cases in which a Parish Council might not have amongst its members persons capable of acting as allotments wardens, and in these cases ho would allow the Parish Councils to appoint persons from outside their own body.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

When we come to Clause 48 it will be found that such a power is provided for.

SIR R. PAGET

What provision is made for cases where there is a parish meeting, and not a Parish Council?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There is an Amendment under Clause 18.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Transfer of powers under adoptive Acts).

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, ho desired to move an Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for Leominster, with the addition of certain words taken from an Amendment standing lower down on the Paper in his own name. The Amendment read as follows:— In page 5, line 24, after l; shall, "to insert," by resolution carried by not less than two-thirds of the parochial electors, being also a clear majority of the parochial electors of the parish. He said, that his reason for proposing this Amendment was that, as very serious expense would be incurred by the adoption of what were called "the adoptive Acts," it was only right that a considerable proportion of the parochial electors should be present at the meeting at which any of those Acts were adopted.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 24, after the word "shall," to insert the words, "by resolution carried by not less than two-thirds of the parochial electors, being also a clear majority of the parochial electors of the parish."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We cannot accept the Amendment. I would point out first to the hon. Gentleman that his view as regards the majority is not in accord with what was done in the matter by the late Government. As recently as 1892 both this House and the other House of Parliament resolved that a simple majority of the electors on the Local Government Register should be sufficient to enforce the Public Libraries Act in any parish of the Kingdom. That is one of the adoptive Acts. We do not propose to interfere with the majority which the Legislature already requires with reference to the adoption of any of these Acts. As the Committee will see by looking at the Amendment Paper lower down we propose to insert in this clause a sub-section providing— Where under any of the said Acts a particular majority is required for the adoption of the Act the like majority of the parish meeting shall be required, and where under any of the said Acts the opinion of the voters is to be ascertained by voting papers the opinion of the parochial electors shall be ascertained by a poll taken in manner provided by this Act. Perhaps the better and wiser course would be to provide, as in the Public Libraries Act, for a simple majority of the rates. But we do not follow that precedent. We leave the Acts exactly as we find them, and do not propose to interfere with them either as to the majority or the incidence of the rates.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate in saying that a bare majority was all that was necessary under the Public Libraries Act of 1892, but under that Act voting papers were to be sent out to all the electors. That was not the case with respect to the other Acts, and he thought it was, therefore, necessary to provide for a majority of two-thirds.

* MR. W. LONG

submitted that if the Committee were to put in, instead of a number of restrictions and limitations, one condition only, which should apply to all the powers under this Act, it would greatly simplify matters for the Parish Councils, for they would then know what the powers were which they had to put in force. He ventured to say that this was the most important clause in the Bill. It proposed to give to these new authorities new powers, and undoubtedly the real danger—and it was a danger which the right hon. Gentleman wished to avoid—was the danger of extravagance. Newly-elected bodies wore always anxious to do their work, and doing work meant an increase in expenditure. In fact, according as they had popularised Elected Bodies, expenditure had increased. He, therefore, thought it would be well to get rid of all the exceptions with regard to these adoptive Acts, and have one condition to apply to them all —the condition of a clear majority of the electors, which would be much simpler and more effective.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I should be very glad to accept that suggestion if the hon. Member will take it according to the last decision of the Legislature— namely, the Free Libraries Act of 1892, which lays down the principle of a bare majority. The people have the right to put that Act in operation by a bare majority, subject to the limitation that the rate must not exceed Id. in the £1. We are, as I have said, willing to leave these Acts as we find them; but, if hon. Gentlemen opposite desire it, we see no objection to applying to them all the principles of the Public Libraries Act of the late Government.

MR. W. LONG

said, that all the Amendment of his hon. Friend asked for was a simple majority. It asked for a two-thirds majority of those present at a meeting representing a majority of the electors. In fact, it was more liberal than the provisions supported by the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that the Act of 1892 required more than the right hon. Gentleman—that was to say, it required a bare majority plus a ballot of the electors by means of voting papers. It would simplify matters if the right hon. Gentleman applied the adoptive Acts on that principle.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, it should be remembered who would have to pay for putting these adoptive Acts into operation—namely, the ratepayers, and not all the electors were ratepayers. It was possible that frequently the Parish Council would not consist of all ratepayers. Therefore, there would be an inducement to the gentlemen composing the Parish Councils to put these Acts into operation, and as that would mean a considerable increase in the rates, he thought that a majority of two-thirds ought to be required.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he hoped that the hon. Member would go to a Division on this Amendment, for it raised the most important question they had to consider in the Bill. All proposals for the representation of minorities for the retention of plural voting and for cumulative voting having been rejected, there were no provisions in the Bill for the protection of those who would have to pay the piper for the making of costly improvements. This Amendment would give them a chance of controlling the outlay of their money. The right hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that the Public Libraries Act did not lay down a similar provision with regard to the representation of minorities. The late Government were responsible for some things which he did not endorse, but he did not think that they were responsible for this particular Act. His recollection was that that Act was in the hands of a private Member.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I said the Act was passed when the late Government was in power, and a Government is responsible for the legislation passed while it is in Office.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the main point was that those who would have to find the funds under the Bill would be deprived of their legitimate share of the expenditure. Here was a chance for giving the ratepayers a small share of the control of their own money; here was a chance for remedying some of the glaring defects in the drafting of the Bill; and if the Government did not accept the Amendment, he hoped his hon. Friend would press it to a Division.

* SIR F. S. POYYELL

said, the suggestion had been thrown out that the Public Libraries Act was an Act of the late Government. The Bill was introduced by a private Member—the Member for the University of London. It was referred to a Select Committee, on which he had had the honour of serving; and it was simply and solely a consolidation of other Acts of Parliament dealing with the subject.

MR. COURTNEY

said that, in order to get a two-thirds majority, which would be half of the electorate, as the Amendment required, it would be necessary to have three-fourths of the electors present at the parish meeting. To require that would be to require conditions which could never be fulfilled. He, therefore, thought the Committee would do wiser in taking the offer of the Government, which was to retain all the securities in the adoptive Acts as to majorities, the only difference being the substitution of a poll for sending out voting papers.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

failed to see why they should not require three-fourths to be present for so important a purpose as adopting Acts, which would impose a very considerable expenditure on the community. In fact, this clause proposed in an incidental and episodical manner to repeal portions of the Acts, and to replace them by an entirely different set of regulations as to the method of voting and the method of carrying them into effect. He had so great a respect for Acts of Parliament as to be shocked at a proposal to alter the conditions under which those Acts should be adopted.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that most of those Acts had already been adopted by the Vestries; and he did not think any great amount of harm would be done by letting the matter stand as it was in the clause.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, the President of the Local Government Board had stated that the previously existing conditions in the Acts would under the Bill apply to the adoption of those Acts. He had looked carefully through the Bill, and, so far as he could see, there was no provision of that kind, except so far as the right hon. Gentleman's proposed Amendment went with regard to majorities.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said, that if any of those Acts were to be adopted in a small community like a village, it was most essential that there should be a general consensus of opinion in its favour. They particularly wished to guard against a small poll or a small declaration of opinion on the fad of one person in a village, and to ask for three-fourths was not too much in a small community like the parish.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that the Public Libraries Act provided for the purchase of the land, the construction of a building, and so forth.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That is going a little beyond the Amendment, which comes in the first line of this clause.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the Amendment referred to the adoption of these Acts by the parish, that the parish might by a majority of two-thirds testify its desire to adopt the Acts. He was endeavouring to show there was good reason for saying that the parish should distinctly testify its desire by a very large majority. As the adoption of the Acts must necessarily lead to a considerable expense there ought to be some overwhelming evidence of the assent of the parish to their adoption. It might be, in many cases, the majority of the parish would determine to adopt the Lighting and Watching Act and other Acts, yet they might be the people who did not contribute the cost.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), that the more complete form of his proposal was on the next page, which read— No resolution of the parish meeting that any Act be adopted for the parish, shall be deemed to be carried unless it be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting, or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish. All that he wanted to do by the Amendment was to produce uniformity in the adoption of the Acts, and further that there should be general assent to the adoption on the part of the electors. With regard to uniformity, he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, that he himself had made one alteration, and when he had made one he might consent to make more.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 175.—(Division List, No. 343.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment— In page 5, line 24, after "exclusively," insert "exercise all the powers of the Vestry so far as relates to the affairs of the Church and "— standing in the name of Mr. Hanbury would apply to Clause 6.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, ho had an Amendment which ho had just handed in, which was as follows:— In page 5, line 26, insert after the word "Acts," the words "subject to the conditions contained in the said Acts respectively. He considered that all conditions laid down by these Acts should be maintained in the Bill. His hon. Friend on the Front Bench seemed to think that if the Bill were allowed to pass in its present form it would not necessarily follow that the conditions contained in these Acts would be contained in the Bill, and he therefore thought that some such words as he proposed should be inserted. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to approve those words.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Do I understand the hon. Member to move it after the first word "Acts"?

MR. LEES KNOWLES

replied that he proposed them after the second word "Acts."

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 26, after the words "adoptive Acts," to insert the words "subject to the conditions contained in the said Acts respectively."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I prefer my own Amendment.

SIR R. PAGET

said, that as they wore now confronted with the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he would ask whether the particular drafting of that Amendment would not have the effect of excluding other provisions? Why was the Amendment for one object that had been singled out, and why was it said that where A particular majority is required for tic adoption of the Act the tike majority of the parish meeting shall be required, and where under any of the said Acts the opinion of the voters is to be ascertained by voting papers the opinion of the parochial electors shall be ascertained by a poll taken in manner provided by this Act.?

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the hon. Baronet was quoting from another Amendment which they had not yet reached.

SIR R. PAGET

said, his remarks were entirely in Order; the Amendment proposed to insert Subject to the conditions contained in the said Acts respectively, and he was upon that question.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he must accept the hon. Baronet's statement, but he understood him to be objecting to the drafting of the other words he read and which were to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the right hon. Gentleman was right in that, but in supporting the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend ho was showing that the Amendment proposed was a better way of dealing with the question than the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman which was on the Paper. He would ask the Solicitor General for an opinion on the question whether, if the Amendment stated that under certain Acts a particular majority was required the like majority might be required of the parish meeting, that did not single out from the adopted Acts one single provision?

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

At present that is not the question before the Committee.

MR. CARSON

thought the Amendment of his hon. Friend deserved more consideration than had been given to it by the President of the Local Government Board. As he understood the right hon. Gentleman when the last Amendment was under discussion, he said he desired to maintain the law in relation to the adoption of these Acts as it at present existed, and all that his hon. Friend behind him wished to do was to carry out what the right hon. Gentleman said were his intentions. [Cries of"No, no!"] He was only stating what was his interpretation; and if that was not the right hon. Gentleman's moaning, ho would press upon the Committee the necessity of some interpretation as to how these Acts were to be adopted. If they were to be adopted by the Parish Council it was not met by the insertion of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. There were certain preliminaries that were requisite to be carried out before the adoption, and were those preliminaries to be given up or not? As the clause at present stood, it occurred to him, on the construction of this section, that all the parish meeting would have to do would be by a majority, which was a "like majority," to say they adopted the Acts, and the moment the parish meeting passed, by a majority, the adoption of these Acts they became adopted, whereas under the Acts themselves they could only be adopted after certain preliminaries, and that was what they wished to protect by the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Take the Public Improvement Act of I860, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. In regard to that, there was to be a subscription of half the expense and a number of matters that must take place before the adoption could be carried out. If the parish meeting had the power to say that simply by a majority they adopted the Act all these preliminaries would be got rid of. That might or might not be the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but he rather gathered, from what ho said before, it was not his intention. If it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention, it would require a good deal of discussion in the Committee before they would be satisfied that there should be no provision at all regulating the adoption of these Acts; if it was not his intention some words were necessary to show that the parish meeting had not the power simply to adopt the Acts by a majority. The right hon. Gentleman himself took the Act of 1892—the Public Libraries Act —and said he was satisfied with regard to that Act the conditions contained in it should be preserved, and all they asked was that the different conditions of these Acts should be preserved, and unless they put the terms in the clause they left to the parish meeting the full honour, free from all conditions, of adopting the Acts

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he did not quite understand the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was an essential part of the Public Improvement Act that one-half the money should be subscribed, and it could not be adopted without that preliminary. Under the existing law these Acts were adopted by the Vestry, and all they did was to substitute for the Vestry the parish meeting, and for the various Commissioners the executive of the parish.

SIR R. PAGET

pointed out that the Lighting and Watching Act of 1833 required to be set in motion by a larger majority than the other Acts, and it would be convenient if the right hon. Gentleman would state the course to be adopted with regard to that Act and the Public Libraries Act.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

replied that the first part of the clause read— As from the appointed day, in every rural parish the parish meeting shall, exclusively, have the power of adopting any of the following Acts, and all that was done by the clause was to substitute the parish meeting for the Vestry. They could not alter the Acts themselves which required to be put in force in a certain manner.

* SIR. R. PAGET

thought that if they could not alter the conditions under the Acts themselves that was satisfactory.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, the right hon. Gentleman dealt with certain conditions, but they wished to deal with all conditions. The right hon. Gentleman made no allusion to notice of meeting, how many ratepayers must give the notice, or how many days beforehand the notice should be given, and what they wished was to deal with all the conditions. It seemed to him that his Amendment, in short, embodied exactly what they wanted.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the majority of the Vestry or of the inhabitants was one thing, but the majority of the Council was quite a different thing, and the proposal of the Government was quite changing the manner of the adoption of the various adoptive Acts.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that a two-thirds majority was required. Did the parish meeting necessarily include a poll consequent on the parish meeting?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 95;, Noes 164.—(Division List, No. 344.).

MR. J. LOWTHER moved to leave out of the adoptive Acts, Sub-section (a), "The Lighting and Watching Act, 1833." He said, the habit of the Government, without investigation of any sort or description, of embodying wholesale in the Bill lengthened Acts of Parliament, some of them practically almost obsolete, was one which required very careful consideration at the hands of the Committee. Among the various Acts which they were asked without any examination whatever to incorporate in this Bill was the Lighting and Watching Act of the 3 & 4 William IV., c. 90. Hon. Members were asked to place on the Statute Book Acts which they knew nothing about. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members might cry "Oh!" but they did not know a single syllable of these Acts, and those who knew nothing about the provisions of these measures would be acting more respectfully to the Committee if they would maintain silence, and not interrupt the proceedings. The Act which he was moving to exclude contained something like 78 sections. [" Read them!"] Of course, if he were ordered to read them by the House of Commons he would do so, but he thought it was hardly necessary to go in detail into this matter. He wished, however, to draw the serious attention of the Committee to the danger of recklessly embodying Statutes without careful examination as to how far they were really suited to the requirements of communities. No doubt some of these Acts might be very good for Municipalities and large communities which required the sort of machinery they provided. Of course, lighting of an expensive character would not be useful to rural districts, and he should not detain the Committee by assuming that Parish Councils would be foolish enough to embark in reckless expenditure with regard to modern appliances for electric light, and that kind of thing, though he would observe that apparently the Bill placed that temptation in their reach. He should like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to some of these provisions. He noticed a marginal note which indicated a clause sanctioning the appointment of an auto-cratical police officer. He did not: know how far that would conflict with the general police Acts, which regulated the country districts at large. There were other marginal notes, one of which stated that watchmen might be appointed and provided with arms, clothing, and so forth. He wished seriously to ask the Government, had they carefully considered how far Statutes like this were capable of being judiciously applied and placed within the reach of an ordinary rural parish? As far as he could understand this Act of Parliament, it enabled a parish community to establish a police force. It called such a force "watchmen," which was going back to the anti-police days. It enabled them to provide them with arms, clothing, &c. He dared say some explanation would he forthcoming on this head, but here they had a proposal asking them to adopt a Statute with 78 sections, which conferred not Only the power of incurring large expenditure in the direction of lighting, but actually the statutory authority to form a police force, in antagonism or conflict, it might be, with the general police force established throughout the country. He did not think the Committee would be justified in adopting, without inquiry, Statutes in this Bill in the manner they were invited to do. Some of these Statutes required a considerable majority of the parish for this adoption, whilst others did not, and that in itself was a great inconsistency. It was really too much, without any investigation or inquiry, to ask the Committee to adopt for the purposes of rural communities Statutes of this ancient date, which appeared to be entirely out of harmony with modern legislation. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, To leave out of the adoptive Acts, Sub-section (a), "The Lighting and Watching Act, 1833."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Gentleman had been very severe on what he called the reckless proposals of the Government in asking the House to adopt Acts of which it had no knowledge.

MR. J. LOWTHER

I said of which many Members of the Committee had no knowledge.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government had a very good precedent, for in 1888 the late Government brought, in a Bill which included the appointment of District Councils, and one of the clauses of that Bill provided that there should be transferred on the appointed day to these rural District Councils the powers of adopting any of the following Acts—namely, the Lighting and Watching Act, the Burials Act, the Public Improvements Act, the Libraries Act, and so on. The Government were not creating this legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying they should not, perhaps, at the present day propose a Lighting and Watching Act in precisely the same terms or under the same conditions that that Act was passed in 1833. But they were giving no parish any power which it did not possess at the present moment. He had been living in a rural parish for some time, and within the last few years they had put this Lighting Act in force in that parish, and under the existing law the Lighting and Watching Act could be adopted in every parish, and there were subsequent provisions dealing with the establishment of a police force and regulating all that. That Lighting Act could be adopted at present by a two-thirds majority of a meeting of ratepayers; the execution of it was entrusted to Inspectors one-third of whom were annually elected, the expenses being paid out of the rates of which laud contributed one-fourth. Instead of the meeting of ratepayers the Government proposed it should be a meeting of the Parish Council. If the light hon. Gentleman objected to the Act, his proper course was to bring in a Bill to repeal it and have it removed from the. Statute Book altogether. It was on the Statute Book, and being on the Statute Book, and being an adoptive Act which any parish might adopt that thought proper to do so, the Government could not see their way to exempt it.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, there was a contribution of one-third from land, and how was the land to be represented on the Parish Councils? If land was to be assessed at one-third, surely that fact alone was sufficient for saying that the Act as it stood was not a fit Act to be adopted. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the analogy of the District Councils Act of 1888, he would remind him that a District Council was a very different thing to a Parish Council and covered a much larger area. Really, to ask the Parish Council to charge land with one-third cost of the Act was most unfair.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It is reducing the rate. It is saying that land shall only pay one-third of the rate for the benefit of the laud.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved the following Amendment:— In page 5, line 32, after "1892," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words—" where under any of the said Acts a particular majority is required for the adoption of the Act the like majority of the parish meeting shall be required, and where under any of the said Acts the opinion of the voters is to be ascertained by voting papers the opinion of the parochial electors shall be ascertained by a poll taken in mariner provided by this Act.

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

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not care to stand by and allow this proposal to be adopted without saying a word, because in 1870, on the introduction of the Ballot Act of that year, and again in 1871, he submitted to the House of Commons a proposal for the extension of the system of taking votes by means of voting papers. Therefore, he could not be expected to stand by and allow what, he considered a fair and convenient I method of gathering the opinion of the electorate to be abolished without a protest. He did not know whether the Committee realised that by this proposal the absent owner, who was to pay in many cases, perhaps, no inconsiderable portion of the rates, would be practically disfranchised. He admitted that the actual machinery by means of which the voting papers were collected was capable of amendment; and if the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to mend instead of to end the system, he would have been heartily with him. He candidly admitted that the existing system of collecting voting papers was open to considerable objection, and required some amendment. The electors, for instance, should be allowed to have the voting papers for a longer time than at present. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have contented himself with finding some reasonable means for meeting the objections, instead of abolishing the system altogether, which, on the whole, had worked with very great advantage.

MAJOR DARWIN

asked whether the words "parish meeting" would include the poll consequent on a parish meeting? If so, it appeared to him that the latter part of the Amendment as to voting papers was not necessary.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that any member of the parish meeting could demand a poll.

MAJOR DARWIN

There must be also a two-thirds majority.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Certainly.

MAJOR DARWIN

Would it not be better to make that perfectly clear?

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.