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

HC Deb 29 November 1893 vol 19 cc1-52

COMMITTEE. [Progress, 28th November.]

[NINTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 7 (Transfer of powers under adoptive Acts.)

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 32, after "1892," to insert, as a new paragraph, 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 manner provided by this Act."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

Debate resumed.

SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells)

. said, he wished to move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, the insertion of the words after "majority" "of ratepayers," and in doing so he would make an earnest appeal to the President of the Local Government Board. This Bill, according to the accepted Liberal doctrine, was to be introduced into every parish in the Kingdom. It would affect, therefore, something like 13,000 parishes, each of which would have to interpret for itself the provisions of the measure. Then let the right hon. Gentleman make the Bill as clear and as plain as possible. How in the world were they going to give effect to it as now framed? Were they going to set up in every village a lawyer to whom application could be made for information? How in the vast number of parishes were they going to set in motion the machinery of any one of the adoptive Acts? These would very often be matters of contention; one section of the parochial electors would be in favour of adopting them, while others would be opposed to that course, and if the section in favour happened to be in a majority it might well happen that through being unable to follow the intricacies of the law they would make some small slip, and then there would be grievous danger that after expense had been incurred all their proceedings would be found to be null and void. The provisions of these adoptive Acts were by no means simple, and yet the Government were importing into the Bill a series of Acts not framed on any general principle, but differing one from the other as to the mode by which they were to be put into operation. They were asking a newly-elected body in a small parish, the population of which did not, perhaps, exceed 100, to ferret out and determine for themselves the intricacies of these Acts, and to make themselves acquainted with the precise mode of procedure necessary for their adoption. If any blunder was made the consequences might be serious, and most certainly there would be an amount of confusion which nobody desired. He did not oppose the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman in its substance, but in its form it was open to various interpretations which it was very difficult for an ordinary layman to explain. The right hon. Gentleman was adopting a series of Acts en bloc, and, in so doing, was proposing to override existing Acts of Parliament in certain particulars. He was substituting the parochial elector for the ratepayer, and it would be well to bear in mind that the ratepayers in Vestry assembled formed a very different body to the parochial electors, some of whom would not probably be direct ratepayers. That was, therefore, a very material alteration of the law. Then he would take a second point. Under the Lighting and Watching Act, before that could be put in force a certain majority was necessary at the Vestry meeting, and a different majority at the poll, if one were demanded. But this Bill, as he understood it, varied the requirements in regard to the majority. Then, again, the Public Libraries Act required that the opinion of the electors should be taken by voting papers; but the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill suggested a poll. Therefore, the Acts were varied, altered, and overridden in these respects by the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman had been content to accept the Acts without any variation the matter would have been far simpler. He did not care to press his own particular form of words to meet the difficulty, if the right hon. Gentleman could suggest any better way; but he would most earnestly impress upon the right hon. Gentleman how desirable it was that the Bill should emerge from the Committee in so simple a form that the simple people of the country parishes might know how to administer it. They had heard a great deal of talk of the squire; but there were numbers of parishes which had no squire, and which were ruled entirely by farmers and yeomen. How could these people go to work under the Act without the assistance of lawyers? He foresaw under the proposal of the Government a rare feast for the lawyers, for they would say to the villagers that for the adoption of the Acts their aid would be required. He wanted to avoid that. He wanted to avoid litigation. His Amendments were entirely directed to giving the procedure a simpler form. He proposed, first, to move to insert in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, after "particular majority" in the first line, the words "of ratepayers." If that Amendment were adopted he would then move to insert after "required," the words— Whether at a meeting of the ratepayers or at a poll consequent thereon, and next to substitute "parochial electors" for "parish meeting," in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. He begged to move the first Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "majority," to insert the words "of ratepayers."— (Sir R. Paget.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)

said, that it was desirable for the Committee to have as clear an apprehension as possible of what the Government attempted to do by this clause. . They did not attempt to give a power which did not already exist, but merely to say that the Vestry which had the power of adopting the Acts should be replaced by the parish, meeting. It could be no one's intention that the Vestry should retain the power of adopting the Acts when it was deprived of all control of secular matters in the parish. The Bill did not therefore interfere in any way with the substantial provisions of the Acts, except so far as to substitute the parish meeting for the Vestry, and to introduce consequential Amendments upon that. If it was assumed that the Acts were so badly drawn that they could not be understood by the parish meeting, the same observation would apply to the Vestry, and the Vestry had had no difficulty in dealing with them. As he had said in a Debate on a totally different question—the question of parish property—it was not so important that the Parish Council should understand the clause, as that the clause should give them what it was intended they should get. It was all right when a thing was to be done for them; but when they had to do a thing themselves, it was necessary that the matter should be clear. When the Parish Council wanted to adopt any of those Acts they would have that Act before them, and that Act only, and everything else must be left out of consideration. Again, with regard to the question of the majority, where a particular majority was required for the adoption of any of the adoptive Acts under the Vestry the like majority under the parish meeting would also be required. Then, how was the majority of the parish meeting to be ascertained? There would either be a poll, or there would not. The taking of a poll was part of the procedure of the meeting. It was in the nature of an adjournment of the meeting for the purpose of obtaining the numbers on either side. He understood this to be the law—that the poll was part of the proceedings of the Vestry or of the parish meeting, as the case might be. It might be suggested that they would have a different class of people to deal with at the meeting than those in a poll. But it was really the same constituency, for every elector was supposed to go to the meeting. In the case of the Lighting and Watching Act, for instance, a certain majority —he thought two-thirds — would be required at a parish meeting for its adoption. If there was that majority and no poll was demanded, the proceedings of the meeting would be brought to a close by the passing of the resolution, but if a poll was demanded the proceedings of the meeting would be incomplete, and they would only be brought to a conclusion by the result of the poll. Therefore, the result of the poll was the result of the parish meeting. With regard to voting papers, the Government rejected that system because it was inconsistent with the way in which the parish meeting would come to a resolution. That was all the difference made. The Bill did not in any degree alter the substantial provisions of the adoptive Acts, and he repeated that the only change in this respect was to substitute the procedure at the parish meeting, including the poll, for the procedure at the Vestry, including the poll also there. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset, he thought it unnecessary, for it did not render the clause at all more clear.

MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)

said, there was one important point in connection with the clause that he wished to bring under the attention of the President of the Local Government Board. It would be within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman that Parliament had been so jealous with regard to the adoption of public Acts that it had put a great restraining influence on Municipal Councils. Under what was generally termed the Borough Funds Act no Municipal Council could use the public funds in opposing or promoting a Bill in Parliament without going through a number of checks and restraints. He noticed that no such restrictions appeared in the present Bill in regard to the new Parochial Councils, who would have the power without any real restriction of saddling the ratepayers of the present and the future with the cost and charges of adopting the Acts in question. This was a serious omission, for he thought the adoption of an Act already passed was of even more importance to a community than the promoting or opposing of a Bill. In addition to the restraints placed on Municipal Councils. in regard to resolutions, majorities, notices, advertisements, and other restraints, it was provided that no expense in promoting or opposing a Bill should be incurred without the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the district. If Parliament was so jealous in regard to the authority and powers given to Town Councils in reference to the promotion of Bills, he certainly thought similar restrictions should be applied to the new Parochial Bodies— who would be formed of a very different element from that which composed Municipal Councils—in respect to their power to throw charges on their parishes. He would also call particular attention to the fact that in relation to Town Councils the owners of property had a right to a voice in deciding the matter. Under the Bill decision was confined to the electors. He should strongly object to greater powers in those matters being given to Parochial Councils than were now given to Town Councils.

MR. LEES KNOWLES (Salford, W.)

pointed out that there was no provision made for the abandonment of one of these Acts in the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board. He thought the words "or abandonment" should be inserted after "adoption." It was possible to abandon the Watching and Lighting Act by a vote, and a bare majority was sufficient. It seemed to him only right that in making provision for the adoption of the Act they should at the same time provide for the abandonment of proceedings under it.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, this discussion had arisen because the parish meeting was not to be composed of ratepayers only, and hon. Members who sat on that side of the House were very much afraid that the vote which would enable the expense of putting in force the adoptive Acts to be incurred would be given by those who did not directly contribute to the rates, and many of whom paid nothing, directly or indirectly. In many parishes, as hon. Members must be aware, the rates were paid by a very small number of people, and it was rather hard that they should be out-voted by non-ratepayers, and not have an effective voice in the expenditure of the money they had to find. He, therefore, hoped the clause would be so amended as to secure that the adoption of any of these Acts would depend on the majority of the ratepayers.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, Parliament in its recent legislation had evinced a desire to simplify the means by which Acts could be put in force. Although the Public Libraries Act of 1893, as originally passed, contained some very antiquated machinery, the House this Session unanimously amended and extended its provisions. He did not concur in the remark made by a right hon. Gentleman on the previous night, that a Public Library was a mere luxury; he believed it to be a great public benefit, and personally he was most grateful to the House for having allowed him to pass this year an Act in relation to these institutions, which would confer much comfort and enjoyment on those who lived in rural parishes, and whose evenings were long and dull.

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

said, he had listened with great care to the Solicitor General, and now that he had returned to the Committee he should like to ask one question. A parish meeting assembled. It was put to the vote whether a particular Act should be adopted or not. Two-thirds might vote for it or against it. Was it competent to any member of the minority then to demand a poll and obtain a poll?

SIR J. RIGBY

There can be no doubt upon that point. Any one can demand and obtain a poll.

MR. WHARTON

Even if a two-thirds majority has decided against him?

SIR J. RIGBY

Yes; and I should like to take this opportunity to quote the words of a much greater authority than myself upon the law as to Vestry meetings. Lord Hatherley, when Vice Chancellor, laid it down as a matter of Common Law that— A poll, according to all the authorities, is a continuance of the Vestry. Persons, although voting by means of a poll, would be, in fact, voting at an adjournment of the Vestry.

MR. W. LONG

said, he thought the speech delivered by the Solicitor General that afternoon had justified the fears to which expression was given on the previous night as to the retention of the existing restrictions and safeguards. Those who sat on the Opposition side of the House held that the clause, even as amended, did not secure the retention of all the safeguards and restrictions contained in the adoptive Acts. The Solicitor General had, however, now told them that no practical change was. made by the clause under discussion in any one of the Acts. He would, however, admit that one great change was, in reality, being made. It was originally contemplated that the decision for their adoption would have to be come to by those who would have to find the necessary money; but by substituting the parish meeting for the Vestry persons who were not ratepayers would be able to vote for the adoption of the Acts, and by altering the executive authority, so that it might consist of persons not resident in the parish, they were making very important changes in the law. He was glad to hear there was no doubt whatever that existing restrictions and safeguards were retained by the clause; but he was bound to say that the Government had not made it perfectly clear in the phraseology of the Bill. He would, however, support the clause as it stood.

SIR R. PAGET

said, the Committee was indebted to the hon. and learned Solicitor General for the friendly and lucid way in which he had unravelled the mysteries of a difficult question: it was only to be regretted that the speech could not be embodied in a five-line Amendment. But there was some misconception on his part with regard to the power of demanding a vote, because, under the Lighting and Watching Act, it required five ratepayers to demand a poll, while under the Public Libraries Act 10 were necessary. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean that those provisions were no longer to be enforced.

SIR J. RIGBY

I only referred to the general principle, and not to specific cases, in which modifications had been made in the general law. In my opinion, special conditions will prevail in such cases as against the general rule.

MR. WHARTON

said, he was not aware at the time he put the question of those specific cases: his question referred rather to the general system of demanding a poll.

SIR R. PAGET

said, he thought it only right to clear away what was evidently a misconception on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His desire in moving the Amendment had been to make the Bill more clear on the points specifically raised, and the peculiar phraseology of the measure was responsible for the discussion which had been raised. Under the circumstances, and in view of the explanations given, he would be content to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, he would like to point out that in the very clear statement the Solicitor General had made he had shown the very great inconvenience of the form in which the Bill was drawn. The chairman of a meeting must have at his elbow all these different statutes to see how many people were required to object before a poll could be demanded. He would have thought that a Bill which touched the constitution of their rural communities would have been drawn in a far simpler form and on a uniform system under which a meeting could be held and a poll demanded, and other formalities complied with. Whereas what did they find? Let them take the Lighting and Watching Act. Many of the sections of that Act were obsolete for all practical purposes. It was an enormously long statute with 78 sections, many of which were in absolute contradiction of the principles now in vogue, and absolutely repugnant to the principles of local government adapted to present times. In many respects the Act of 1833 had been modified by subsequent legislation, many had been absolutely overridden, and if any of the Parochial Authorities were to avail themselves of the power conferred they would be guilty of a misdemeanour. Nothing was more absurd than to embody in a Bill like that many Acts which had since become obsolete. Did the right hon. Gentleman not foresee endless confusion?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that even the Solicitor General was not thoroughly posted as to these Acts, for he had told them that any single elector could demand a poll, whereas he had since had to admit that in the case of one Act it required five electors to demand a poll.

SIR J. RIGBY

I was speaking then; of the general question, and I was not dealing with specific Acts.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the fact was that the highest living Legal Authority, who had informed the House that he was perfectly familiar with these statutes, had failed to inform himself upon that one point. The hon. Member for Wigan certainly had a very partial feeling for the Public Libraries Act, but for his part he thought that that only opened up an avenue for extravagant expenditure.

SIR F. S. POWELL

The expenditure is limited to 1d. in the £1.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that certainly the expenditure under particular Acts was limited, but there was such a thing as a man securing support for his proposal on condition that he voted for that of somebody else. Only a penny for another thing and only a penny for another rate, and that was how rates went leaping up. A majority of one upon the poll of the parish could adopt this Act. He thought if ever there was a case where precautions should be taken it would be this where the Act could be adopted by a mere majority. The Solicitor General had told them that, as a general rule, one person could demand a poll on all public questions, and he gave them the impression that that was the principle laid down by the Bill.

SIR J. RIGBY

No.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that that, at any rate, was the impression conveyed to his mind and to the minds of those sitting near him, and yet those who trusted the people were now insisting that on certain questions it should require 10 persons to demand a poll—no inconsiderable number for a small parish. The Bill had been drawn in a haphazard manner, and the Government had simply pitchforked into it statutes many of which were of an obsolete character for all practical purposes. They had had a very instructive discussion, which should act as a warning to all who in the future might have charge of Bills.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing himself to the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that in replying to the very courteous speech of the Solicitor General, he had, no doubt, rather departed from the words of the Amendment, but he thought he had shown that the Bill in the matters he had referred to required amendment. It surely would be more convenient to lay down a uniform practice in the matter of demanding a poll. It was desirable that the inhabitants of rural parishes should have a clear and definite notion of the privileges to which they were entitled.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment amended, by inserting the words "or abandonment," after the word "adoption," in line 2.—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he proposed to leave out the words "of the parish meeting."

THE CHAIRMAN

Then the Amendment would not read.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Yes, it would read— Where under any of the said Acts a particular majority is required for the adoption of the Act the like majority shall be required," &c.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Committee have already decided that "the majority" must mean "the majority of the parish meeting."

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes, that is so. It has already been decided. The Amendment is out of Order.

[The Amendment was not put.]

MAJOR DARWIN

said, he wished to move the insertion of the words after "meeting," "or of the parochial electors at a poll."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 2, after the word " meeting," to insert the words " or of the parochial electors at a poll."—(Major Darwin)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Amendment could not be accepted. Instead of being instructive it would prove misleading and he had the strongest possible objection to introducing piecemeal the Common Law of the land. Where they had the Common Law established better leave it where it was.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that while they all sympathised with the desire of the Solicitor General to make the Bill as plain as possible, he was bound to state that it was by no means clear what a parish meeting was. In one clause they were told it consisted of Local Government and Parliamentary electors, but in the First Schedule a very different meaning was given to the term. How were they going to provide that any particular Act should be adopted by a like majority? He was entitled to ask what they meant by a parish meeting? A parish meeting consisted of parochial electors. That was to say, there were 300 electors, and they constituted the parish meeting.

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

On a point of Order, is it competent for the hon. Gentleman to go into the composition and constitution of the parish meeting on this Amendment?

THE CHAIRMAN

Up to the present moment, I cannot say that the hon. Gentleman is out of Order.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he did not intend to transgress the Rules of Order. Take the parish meeting as defined by Section 2, and say that it consisted of 300 persons, and that, when the meeting was convened, only three persons came to it. Under Schedule 1 they would be the parish meeting, and the majority of these three persons would be competent to take a decision subject to the demand for a poll. Take the ease where a two-thirds majority was required. Did they mean by a like majority of the parish meeting a majority of two out of three individuals who assembled at the meeting convened from the 200 or 300 people who constituted the parish? That was a practical point left open by this expression "parish meeting," inasmuch as it was used in one sense in the Schedule which regulated the proceedings, and in another sense in the Definition Clause. Suppose, again, the parish meeting consisted of 300, and only three attended, and that two out of the three voted for an Act requiring a two-thirds majority, and it happened to be one of those instances where a poll could not be demanded except by five persons. How was one man to constitute five persons? It seemed to him that in such a case a poll could not be demanded. If the Bill were adopted in its present form they would require a Solicitor General in every village in the Kingdom. When they talked of a like majority, did they mean the persons who met together out of those who constituted the parish meeting, that was out of the body of parochial electors, or did they mean the whole body of parochial electors?

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, there was little doubt that after the long speech of the Solicitor General the Members of the Committee thoroughly understood the matter, but without that speech he ventured to think that the ordinary parish meeting would not understand the effect of the provision. They were told that statutory enactments must be read in the light of the Common Law. That, no doubt, was perfectly true, but he would venture to suggest to the Government that if they could not accept this Amendment they should, at any rate, in some part of the Bill, say the Definition Clause, make it clear that all references to the parish meeting did include reference to the poll.

Question put, and negatived.

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

suggested that the following words in the Amendment might be omitted:— Where under any of the said Acts the opinion of the voters is to be ascertained by voting papers. Such an omission would, he contended, obviate the difficulties, and then they would arrive at what he thought the right hon. Gentleman intended and desired.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had been anxious to avoid expense in the working of these parish meetings, and the Government considered that the machinery of the voting papers for ascertaining the opinions of the voters—which had been abolished so far as large towns were concerned—was an expensive mode of procedure, and they substituted for that the ordinary poll of the parish. As originally drawn, the Government considered these words to be absolutely unnecessary. They considered the thing was as clear as crystal.. The only change which the Government Amendment made was to provide that instead of the Acts being adopted by the ratepayers or the Vestry they were to be adopted by the parish meeting, and all the wonderful difficulties they had heard of were in existence at this moment. There was not a single parish in England, large or small, which had not the power of adopting these Acts. The Government were creating nothing new, and if a parish adopted the Acts now it was called upon to grapple with all the difficulties they had heard of. All they did by this clause was to substitute the parish meeting for the ratepayers or for the Vestry. Hon. Members said there were doubts, the Solicitor General said there were not, but in order to remove those doubts this additional Amendment had been moved, which had occupied half-an-hour last night and two hours this afternoon. It had been brought forward to meet the doubts and difficulties expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to make clear what the Government believed to be already in the Bill. All the thanks he had received was to find that matters had been rendered more confused than ever. What had occurred would be a warning to him in the interests of the future progress of the Bill. The Government would take the Amendment as it stood, and would ask the Committee to decide upon it in its present form.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

was sorry the right hon. Gentleman should have taken the view he had done of the matter. In order to save time he (Mr. Lawson) had not moved the Amendment, and he did not propose to do so now.

MR. W. LONG

really thought the right hon. Gentleman was a little bit hard upon the Opposition. In the first place, in the very difficult work the right hon. Gentleman had got to discharge it was necessary to be accurate, and when he told them that the Amendment had been under discussion for two hours that day the right hon. Gentleman was strangely inaccurate. As a matter of fact, they did not commence business on this particular Bill until half-past 12, and it was now 20 minutes to 2, so that it would be very difficult to make two hours out of the interval from half-past 12 to 20 minutes to 2. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that Members on the. Opposition side had only acted with a view to removing what they honestly believed to be difficulties, and suggesting remedies, and not with any desire to obstruct the passage of the Bill.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

^*MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts., Mansfield) rose to move the following Amendment:— In page 5, line 32, at end, insert.—" (2) When the' Sanitary Authority have not provided a burial ground for the parish under ' The Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879,' the parish meeting may pass a resolution that that Act shall be put in force for the parish, and thereupon the parish meeting shall be deemed to have adopted the Act as if it were one of the adoptive Acts, and the Parish Council shall, for the purpose of providing and maintaining a burial ground for the parish, have all the powers of a Sanitary Authority under that Act, and those powers shall cease to be exercised by the Sanitary Authority for the parish.

He said, the Amendment was of a very limited and of a strictly practical and non-controversial character. Its object was to give parishes which had to acquire burial grounds the liberty of choosing whether they would proceed under the Burials Acts, or under the Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879. He very much regretted that the Burial Acts had not long since been reformed and consolidated, but he admitted that the Government were obliged to deal with the Acts as they found them, and to deal with them as they had done in the present Bill. But, as large changes could not be effected, he proposed a very small one, in order to try and obviate some of those inconveniences which were caused by that chaotic mass of legislation known as the Burials Acts. His wish was to secure to the Parish Councils the same right as the Sanitary Authorities now possessed of providing cemeteries under the Public Health (Interments) Acts, 1879. That wish was based on the fact that that Act was less restrictive, and might be a less expensive measure than the Burials Acts. In making this proposal, he was glad to remember that the Public Health (In- terments) Act, for the adoption of which he was pleading, was the offspring of the Party opposite. It was brought in during the time a Conservative Government was in power, and was supported and passed by them. Therefore, he thought he might calculate on the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the proposal he now made. As to the attitude of the Government, he could not imagine what reasonable objection could be taken to this Amendment, which would hurt no one's susceptibilities, and would facilitate the means of providing resting places for the dead. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 5, line 32, at end, insert,—(2) "When the Sanitary Authority have not provided a burial ground for a parish under ' The Public Health (Interments) Act, 1879,' the parish meeting may pass a resolution that that Act shall be put in force for the parish, and thereupon the parish meeting shall be deemed to have adopted the Act as if it were one of the adoptive Acts, and the Parish Council shall, for the purpose of providing and maintaining a burial ground for the parish, have all the powers of a Sanitary Authority under that Act, and those powers shall cease to be exercised by the Sanitary Authority for the parish."—(Mr. Can-all Williams.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

quite agreed with his hon. Friend behind him that the Burials Acts at the present moment were accurately described as a chaotic mass, but he could not undertake to reduce that chaos to order in the present Bill. That would be a very heavy task to undertake, requiring a great deal of thought. He sympathised with the object of his hon. Friend, and acknowledged that the Public Health (Interments) Act of 1879, generally known as Martin's Act, was a very great improvement on a great deal of existing burial legislation. But under this Bill generally the Government were transferring to the Parish Council or the parish meeting the powers and duties of the Vestry. The adoption of the Amendment might produce friction. The hon. Member proposed that where a Sanitary Authority had not provided a burial ground under the Act of 1879 the parish meeting might then practically proceed to construct a cemetery. The Amendment would enable a parish meeting to provide a cemetery even where there was a cemetery under a Burial Board or a churchyard which was not closed; and he was sure the hon. Member did not mean that. On the technical ground that the clause simply dealt with powers that were transferred to the Parish Councils, and on the broader ground that he could not undertake to constitute a Parish Council a Rural Sanitary Authority, he could not accept the Amendment. But he agreed with the hon. Member that there were many provisions of the Burials Acts that were absolutely indefensible, and there was a great deal in Martin's Act that he should like to see made of general application. He could not accept the Amendment.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

expressed the hope that the Amendment would not be adopted in any part of the Bill—[Mr. H. H. FOWLER: I have said it will not]—as it would introduce complications, and probably the incurring of much expense. Whilst sympathising with the object the hon. Member had in view, and whilst he acknowledged the Burials Acts were in a chaotic state, this was not the place in which they could deal with them.

MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS

was glad to have elicited from the President of the Local Government Board an expression of opinion regarding the necessity for further burial legislation. Of course, he did not wish to impose that task upon the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill. He considered that the objections taken to the Amendment were of an extremely technical kind; but after what had been stated he should not press it to a Division, but would ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, in consequence of the Debate and Division which took place the previous night, he should not move Sub-section (b) of his proposed new clause.

[The following was the new clause referred to.] Page 5, line 33, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert—"With respect to the adoption of the adoptive Acts the following provisions shall have effect, namely—

1. (a) Upon the requisition in writing of any five parochial electors the chairman of the parish meeting shall convene a parish meeting for the special purpose of determining whether the Act to which the requisition relates shall be adopted for the parish, and shall give public notice of such parish meeting in the manner provided by this Act for giving notices of parish meetings at least seven days before the day appointed for the holding of such parish meeting;
2. (b) 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;
3. (c) If such resolution shall have been carried, the chairman of the parish meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the provisions of the adoptive Act shall not come into force in the parish unless and until such resolution shall have been approved by the County Council;
4. (d) The County Council shall consider any representation which may be made by any five parochial electors of the parish as to the advisability or otherwise of approving such resolution, and shall cause such inquiries to be made and notices given as they may deem expedient for the purpose of deciding whether they shall approve such resolution or not;

Nothing in this Act shall affect any limitation or restriction in any of the adoptive Acts contained as to the expenditure which may be incurred in connection. with the execution of such Act, bat with respect to the method of adopting any such Act in any rural parish, the provisions of such Act. so far as they are inconsistent with this Act, are hereby repealed."

THE CHAIRMAN

Sub-sections (b) (c) and (d) are all out of Order.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, what he wanted to provide was that when these Acts were adopted at one of these meetings, that then the adoption of the Act should be approved by the County Council. He did not understand that would be out of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes; that is out of Order, and quite outside the scheme. The first paragraph in Sub-section (a) I cannot say is out of Order, and the last paragraph in the Amendment is in Order.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it might save time if he said that he quite agreed with regard to giving notice of the meetings that at least seven days should be given, and provision should be made for this in the Schedule.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, that being so he should not move his Amendment.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 5, lines 38 and 39, to leave out " the parish meeting," and insert " a parish meeting held. In page 6, line 9, after "day," to insert "and the parish has a Parish Council.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

Clause 8 (Additional powers of Parish Council.)

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, he desired to move to insert the words " and to maintain," in Sub-section (a), so as to make the clause read, that the Parish Council should have power— To provide or acquire and to maintain buildings for public offices and for meetings and other public purposes.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the point was covered in Sub-section (h).

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman would call attention to Sub-section (h); but he (Mr. Knowles) regarded that sub-section as having reference to large and important works, and not small works of ordinary maintenance. The words in Sub-section (h) were too general, and he thought there ought to be something specific in the clause, in order that the Parish Councils might have some limit suggested to their expenditure, and some indication as to the direction in which money should be spent. If "works of maintenance" meant "to maintain," then it would be the duty of these newly-formed bodies, or in their power, to maintain "gifts of property, real or personal" dealt with in Sub-section (g). The words of Sub-section (g) were very vague, and he hardly knew what they meant. If a leasehold were given that would be a gift of personal property. It might be wasting property, still the Council would be able to execute "works of maintenance" upon it. Then, in Sub-section (e), the Council was to have power— To deal with any pond, pool, open ditch, drain, or place containing, or used for the collection of, any drainage, and so on. It seemed to him that if they did not introduce some sort of definition with regard to maintenance and maintaining they would give these new bodies unlimited powers, and, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were fond of pointing out, they did not wish to promote anything which would lead to extravagance. The Councils would be mainly composed of men who did not pay rates, and if they had unlimited powers of expenditure in acquiring buildings, and executing "works of maintenance," which works might be absolutely for their own advantage, he thought there was likely to be extravagance.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 16, after the word "acquire," to insert the words "and to maintain."—(Mr. Lees Knowles.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was told that the words in Sub-section (h) "to execute any works of maintenance or improvement," &c, fully covered the point raised by the hon. Member. These words, he understood, would even cover the cost of repairing a broken window. The Amendment was purely a drafting one, and the Government preferred to adhere to the words of the Bill.

MR. W. LONG

said, he did not wish to say any thing about the draftsmanship of the Bill. He endorsed everything that had been said in the course of these discussions about the capacity of the Government draftsmen and their desire to serve the public; but, at the same time, the gentlemen who performed these difficult duties did not always realise what would be the position of the people who would have to carry out these Acts of Parliament after they were framed. Sub-section (h) said— to exercise any works of maintenance or improvement incidental to or consequential on the exercise of any of the foregoing powers or in relation to any parish property. Surely those words were of a vague and doubtful character.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No, no. I am told that they will cover every case.

MR. W. LONG

said, there would not be many buildings under the control of the Parish Council. In those cases where the place of meeting was a village school, he took it that the maintenance of the building would rest with the school managers or School Board. In cases, however, where there was a parish room unconnected with any religious denomination, no doubt that would be used for meetings, and he submitted that if the words of Sub-section (h) were interpreted as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, they would enable the Parish Council to double or treble the size of that parish room. [Mr. STOREY: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Sunder-land cheered that, but if it was only suggested that necessary repairs should be carried out, the clause went much farther than was intended. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could not eat his cake and have it. If he was going to stand by his draftsmen and stick to the words of the Bill, he could not complain if those words were criticised. This clause had a great many subsections, and everyone knew that when a clause was sub-divided in that way it was difficult to consider one sub-section without having regard to others. Sub-sections (a) and (h) would, practically, have to be read together, because in the one case they provided for .the acquisition of buildings, and in the other they provided for executing " works of maintenance " on those buildings. If the right hon. Gentleman meant to confer on the Parish Councils a free hand as to maintenance, improvement, and enlargement, he (Mr. Long) contended that that was throwing on them large responsibilities, and opening out considerable fields of possible extravagance. At all events, the Committee ought to know what they were doing when they passed the clause. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman only meant that the new executive authority should have power to provide the room and maintain it in proper order, they would give all the necessary power by adopting the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, Sub-section (h) included the present Amendment. When they came to that sub-section they could discuss the desirability of amending its phraseology.

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

said, he was a little wearied of hearing the Government draftsmen perpetually patted on the back. Everybody who knew anything about the Local Government Act of 1888 was aware that it was full of abominable ambiguities. As to the Amendment, it appeared to him that Section (h) did include all that the hon. Member proposed, and he thought that in this instance the Government draftsmen were right. The section gave much larger powers than mere maintenance and improvement. It gave power to "provide or acquire buildings for public offices," and that, of course, included power to maintain the buildings when so provided or acquired.

MR. WHARTON

said, that in the interest of simplicity and clearness, he agreed with the Amendment. The words "to maintain," if inserted in Subsection (a), would be clearer to Parish Councillors than the words in Sub-section (h). If the Amendment were agreed to it would not be surplusage to leave in Sub-section (h).

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he agreed as to the last Act being full of ambiguities, but the present one, as drawn, would make confusion worse confounded in many rural districts of the country. He should like to be informed of the meaning of the words "provide or acquire." Did they mean that the parish might build, or buy buildings, or hire them? That seemed to 'be the case, having regard to the fact that Clause 6 handed over all buildings and other property now vested in the Parish Authorities to the Parish Council.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

trusted that the Amendment would be withdrawn, as there was no necessity for it. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House wanted to improve the Bill, but not to overload it with words.

MR. LEES KNOWLES

said, it seemed to him that the Government were constantly postponing matters. They were told to postpone Amendments on Sub-section (a) until they came to Sub-section (h), but when they came to Sub-section (h) the Committee might take a different view of it. It might be plain to the mind of the Solicitor General that "works of maintenance" would include even the repair of broken chairs and tables, and so on, but it was desirable to make the thing plain to the lay mind. Even if his Amendment were covered by Sub-section (h), what objection could there be to the repetition? He thought hon. Members were a little hard on the draftsmen, because Bills were frequently altered after they left their hands, and it was often difficult in consequence to render the whole concise and satisfactory.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, he wished to move to amend the clause by leaving out the words from the first "for," in line 16, to "purposes," in line 17, in order to insert the words "to be used as a parish room or office." He moved this on account of the vagueness of the clause—and that it was vague was illustrated by the fact that the hon. Member for Wiltshire had down an Amendment to include "houses for working classes." The sub-section said— To provide or acquire buildings for public offices and for meetings and other public purposes. Well, what were these "other public purposes"? Was a cricket pavilion on the village green a building for a public purpose? A public house, he should imagine, was a building for a public purpose, and so was a meeting house. The clause would enable the Public Libraries Act to be set aside, for the Parish Council would be able to acquire a building for a library under this section on the plea that it was for a public purpose. In his opinion, if this clause had been placed before Clause 7, there would have been no occasion to insert the latter. The powers of the present clause were so large that the adoptive Acts could have been put in force under them, on the ground that they were for a public purpose. It was necessary to be clear in the Bill, for they must remem- ber that they were legislating for 8,800 new authorities, and it was only reasonable to assume that some of them would be foolish and extravagant. Even the House of Commons at times was foolish and extravagant, and was it to be expected that members of Parish Councils would have more wisdom and sagacity than Members of Parliament?

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 16, to leave out from the word " buildings." to the end of Sub-section (a), and insert the words " to be used as a parish room or office."—(Mr. J. Grant Lawson.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'public offices and for meetings' stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite agreed that it was desirable to have checks against extravagance. The principal check all Public Bodies in the country were under was that of being obliged to obtain the money they required by loan. Well, the Parish Council could not, under the Bill, borrow money except with the sanction of the County Council and of the Local Government Board. Therefore, before the Parish Council could be guilty of extravagance the County Council would have to be guilty, and the Local Government Board also, and herein was a practical limitation of the power of the Parish Council. Dealing with the matter on broad grounds, he thought they would make a great mistake if, having consented to limit the taxing and borrowing powers, they attempted to restrict the operations of the Parish Councils as no other Public Bodies in the country were restricted. The hon. Member proposed to restrict the power of the Parish Councils to the acquisition of a building "to be used as a parish room or office," but there were surely other public purposes for which buildings might be required. There was some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member when he suggested that the adoptive Acts could be evaded under this clause. Where would the money come from unless the adoptive Acts ware put in force. It must be remembered that all through these clauses they had the limit of the 1d. rate. There would be no question of accumulation or anything of that sort if they looked at the Amendments the Government proposed to Clause 10. Under these limits he considered it desirable to leave the Parish Councils to manage their affairs in their own way.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, the right hon. Gentleman at the outset of the discussion invited Representatives of the rural districts to bring forward points that occurred to them as affecting the interests of their constituents. Well, one of those points was the power contained in this clause. Many of them had received letters complaining of the vagueness of the section. They did not object to the Parish Councils acquiring buildings for public meetings, but much alarm had been created by the use of the words "other public purposes" in the clause. The right hon. Gentleman had said that buildings might be required for other purposes than holding meetings. Perhaps he would give some explanation of the meaning he attached to the words "other purposes."

MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

said, the right hon. Gentleman stated that a 1d. rate would be a great safeguard. The Committee would agree, no doubt, that a. 1d. rate in small parishes would not be enough to supply many buildings. In some parishes the sum would not amount to more than £2 10s. But he should like to know whether it would not be possible for parishes to join, and would suggest an Amendment to effect that purpose. If two parishes near one another could join they might be able to carry out many of the objects contemplated by the clause, and save the ratepayers a great deal of expense.

MR. J. GRANT LAWSON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that no danger would arise from these words in the Bill, because the Parish Councils were going to be in leading strings—like the third horse in a 'bus between the County Council and the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman was going to tell these people, "You may have these powers, but you cannot exercise them, because you will not be able to find the money." Was that not mocking the Parish Councils? The right hon. Gentleman said that the Parish Councils would not be able to levy more than a 1d. rate, but in his Amendment to Clause 10 he said— But the Council may, for the purpose of paying the annual charge for money borrowed under this Act, or of meeting any special expenditure in that year which the County Council allow, raise, in addition to the said 1d. in the £1, the necessary sum. Was it to be expected that the County Council would say that the Parish Council did not know its own requirements, and that it would take a fatherly interest in every tiny village?

SIR R. TEMPLE

asked if the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would be so kind as to answer the' question addressed to him by the late Secretary of State for War? They desired on the Opposition side to know what public buildings came under the head of "other public purposes," and whether the expression might not include a number of luxuries which the parishes could not afford? They were not satisfied with the check of the County Council, because the County Council might be extravagant, and when they came to the Local Government Board a great deal would depend on what Government was in power.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had already given the best answer he could, and it was not necessary to repeat it. As to luxuries, he did not think the powers would be sufficient to enable the Parish Council to provide a circus. The Financial Department of the Local Government Board would not be influenced by any political consideration. It was regulated by wise Rules, and he would be a bold and imprudent Minister who would attempt to in were with the Code of financial administration which had long prevailed in the Department, which had been administered by Ministers taken from both sides of the House, and which would always be administered economically and efficiently. So far as the public were concerned, the general complaint was that the Department was too restricted in its operation. It was never rash.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the probable action of his Department. He did not think that any Government would attempt to exercise pressure on the Financial Department of the Local Government Board, or that whatever Party was in Office the powers under the Bill would be exercised in any other than an economical and proper way. He would point out that it was impossible that all the purposes given to the Parish Council to deal with could be met by the limited powers provided by the Bill. What, then, was certain to happen? Why, there would be disappointment, and the Parish Councils would come to Parliament for an alteration of their powers. They, therefore, were not wasting time now in carefully defining the powers of the Councils. If they adopted a financial limit merely, it would be a great mistake.

MR. L. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

said, he should like to have a definition of the word parish "building." Would it include the erection of a pump or the sinking of a well—things which they all knew were required in country villages.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That point would be covered by Sub-section (d).

MR. L. HARDY

said, that that subsection only stated "to utilise any supply of water within their parish." He would like to ask the Solicitor General whether a pump was a building?

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, the right hon. Gentleman stated that there was to be a strict 1d. limit to the expenditure of the Parish Council; but, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, that limit was not an absolute one. For the purpose of paying charges on loans, or of meeting any special expenditure which the County Council allowed, a rate exceeding 1d. in the £1 might be raised. He would ask in what position would the County Council be if the Parish Council asked for permission to erect public buildings under this clause? They would say that Parliament had given them the large powers for the erection of such buildings. They would say—"We desire to exercise those powers, and we apply to you to exercise your dispensing powers under Clause 10, in order that we may raise a much larger sum than 1d. in the £1." He ventured to think that many County Councils would feel themselves forced to listen to such an appeal, and that therefore the limit imposed by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was illusory. Surely it was not wise to tempt Parish Councils with such prospects as the Government proposed to put into this clause unless they were satisfied that these buildings were necessary in most parishes. Surely they ought not first tempt Parish Councils and then to impose such a strict limit of expenditure that they could not carry out the powers.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 184; Noes 95.—(Division List, No. 345.)

MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY (Dorset, N.), in the absence of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Farquharson), moved to insert, after "meetings," in line 17, the words "and almshouses." He said, there could be no greater boon to the poor in the country villages than to insert in the Bill a provision authorising the establishment by Parish Councils of such useful buildings as almshouses. There was no greater grievance amongst the poor at the present time than that, as they said, they had nothing but the workhouse staring them in the face in their old age.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 17, after the word "meetings," to insert the words "and almshouses."—(Mr. Wingfield-Digby.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We do not propose in this Bill to transfer any Poor Law powers whatever to the Parish Council. Clearly, this is a form of dealing with the administration of the Poor Law, and I must resist the proposal on that ground alone. I would point out also that the adoption of the proposal would involve a very large expenditure, although there would be no income coming in to meet it, and the poor Parish Council would be simply swamped.

MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY

said, that if the Bill dealt with Parish Councils alone there might have been some reason for not mentioning the question of aims-houses, but a large portion of the Bill was devoted to the amendment of the Poor Law. Of course, if the Government intended to drop that part of the measure—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

MR. WINGFIELD-DIGBY

If the Government intended to drop their Poor Law proposals he should have been very glad to drop his Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)

said, that although he voted in favour of the Amendment which was last divided upon, and which was intended to restrict the purposes for which buildings might be acquired by Parish Councils, he thought it not inconsistent with the position he had taken up to move an Amendment which would make it clear that a certain class of buildings came within the purview of the Act. He referred to those which were ordinarily known as parish rooms—i.e., buildings where Provident Societies, Benefit Societies, and other organisations might meet, where there might be a room for concerts, and so on, and where recreation, such as was common in a village, might be carried on. His proposal was to insert after "meetings" the words "and for purposes of recreation and resort." In the next sub-section such purposes were already included as far as land was concerned. Those who had seen the parish rooms which had been voluntarily established in various parts of the country, and knew the effects they very often had on the life of the parish, would recognise that there could be no more important factor in the amelioration of village life than the provision of a parish' room where people could meet together on common ground for the purposes for which such rooms were generally used. They had been reminded by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that the rate of the Council was limited to 1d., and that that was not a large amount out of which purposes such as he proposed could be carried out. On the other hand, they had had from his own side of the House expressions of fear lest Parish Councils might be inclined to extravagance, but he would suggest that the limit of 1d. was an effective power against that. In many cases it could not be done out of a 1d. rate, but there were many cases in which it would be done by the help of subscribers and those desirous of setting afloat a scheme of this sort, which they would be glad to have managed by the Parish Council. He believed that in many eases, if the Parish Council were to set on foot a scheme of the kind for the purposes of a parish room, to be used for purposes such as he had mentioned, the bulk of the expenses would probably be subscribed by those in the parish who were interested in such matters, and had means to enable them to carry it out. Unless it was made clear that the Parish Council had power to deal with a building of this sort he thought there would be a great defect in the Act. The right hon. Gentleman just now raised a suspicion that the words "other public purposes" would not be wide enough to include a surplus. He was not desirous to include a surplus. No doubt it was difficult to move language, when dealing with a matter of this kind, which would not include some real defect; but he desired that it should be made perfectly clear that under favourable circumstances, such as he had mentioned, where they were helped by subscriptions, the parish should have power to undertake the management and maintenance of parish rooms. In many cases the Parish Council could combine the parish room with their ordinary offices—that was to say, if the parish was large enough to erect, Provide or acquire buildings for public offices, it would be easy to provide, in connection with such offices, two or three rooms at a small additional expense that might be used for the meeting of Sick Benefit Societies, reading and recreation rooms, or rooms of that sort, without setting in motion the Free Libraries Act or any other Act of that kind. The Government had, he would nor say professed, as it might be an invidious term, but at all events the Government had held themselves out as being the friends of the temperance movement, and he could conceive nothing that was more likely to conduce to the cause of temperance than the establishment of such rooms as these in every parish in the country. That which lay at the root of the degradation coming from intemperance was the fact that the working men and the labourers of a parish had no place of resort in the parish but the public house. To the public house they were obliged to go if they wanted to get away from home, or to meet their fellow-workmen, and there they were obliged to sit drinking for the good of the house, and the consequence was that habits of intemperance were formed. If there was a general desire on the part of the Government to ameliorate the conditions of parish life, and to check intemperance, then he said the provision of such rooms as these would be calculated to have that effect. [Cries of "Agreed!"] If the Government would agree to accept the Amendment he should be delighted, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an indication that he was also agreed, he would sit down at once; but he feared the right hon. Gentleman was not so likely to be agreed as hon. Members seemed to think. He believed that if they could establish in every parish in the country a parish room, and put the rest of the Bill in the fire, they would do more good for the improvement of village life than all that the Bill would do; therefore he begged to move his Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to bring up the Amendment?

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, the Amendment was to introduce, after "meetings," the words "and for purposes of recreation and resort."

The Amendment being handed in,

THE CHAIRMAN

said: I wish respectfully to call the attention of the Committee to the great number of manuscript Amendments which are handed in, and which seriously interfere with the duties of the Chair.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 17, after the word "meeting," to insert the words "and for purposes of recreation and resort."—(Mr. Bousfield.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman might have made his speech half an hour ago in opposing the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton), where the whole question was raised. As he understood, the hon. and learned Gentleman voted against that Amendment.

MR. B0USF1ELD

said, he was in favour of leaving out the main general words, but he desired to put in the specific words he had just moved.

MR. H. H. FOWLEE

said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had succeeded, in striking out the main words, he would not have bad the opportunity of moving his Amendment.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, he should have moved them.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had great sympathy with the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he hoped he would give the Government credit for a desire to ameliorate the conditions of the working people in the parishes and also to deal with the other evil to which he had referred. The Government preferred the words "and other public purposes," and the Committee had practically approved of those words.

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

said, there was this one point in connection with the question— the Parish Council could let their rooms under the Bill as it stood; therefore, they could do all that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested they ought to do. At this moment there were many Urban Authorities which had rooms that could be let for other purposes than parish offices, and under this Bill Rural Authorities could do the like.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

did not think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board met the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He hardly thought that such rooms as the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplated could be included under the words "other public purposes." If it was so, he did not see any harm in making it perfectly clear; but there was hardly anyone in the House who would suppose that a room for recreation and resort, for amusements, and so forth, would come under the terms "other public purposes." Then he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. W. Dilke) was under a misapprehension. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he took it, did not want a public building that could be let out for any entertainment, but what he wanted was that there should be some means afforded for recreation indoors as a counter attraction to that the parish provided out-of-doors. In winter time recreation grounds would be of comparatively small importance, and it would be a great boon if some room could be set aside for recreation where the villagers could resort during the winter months. The great drawback to English village life now was its insufferable dulness, and he could not conceive anything that would be more likely to remove that dulness than to provide such rooms as were contemplated? by the Amendment. If they gave the power to provide recreation and amusements out-of-doors, the only corollary was to give facilities for providing recreation and amusement indoors. He considered that no real answer had been given by the right hon. Gentleman to the Amendment, and he should be glad ' if the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accepting it.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said that, as regarded this Amendment, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it would not be right to insert a provision opening up an entirely new field of expenditure. But his real reason for intervening now was to ask the right hon. Gentleman to omit the words "and other public purposes "— not to substitute anything else, but to leave them out altogether. In the meanwhile, he thought it was most desirable-they should, in any case where they allowed money to be expended out of the rates, distinctly earmark the purposes for which it was to be spent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) appeared to be in favour of almost unlimited parochial expenditure. They had already given powers for having a public library, and now the right hon. Gentleman wanted to give a gymnasium, and he (Mr. Lowther) did not know where the right hon. Gentleman would stop.

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, the great blot upon this Bill was its wonderful uniformity; the Government had invented a brand-new uniform with a great deal of local colour, into which they wished to force the raw agricultural recruit, and they had stamped the Education Department and the Local Government Board upon every button. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bousfield) was quite right when he stated that a room for recreation and resort would be acceptable to suburban districts. He represented a district partly rural and partly suburban; in the suburban locality they would gladly welcome, without any great sacrifice to themselves, a room that would suit their purposes; but on behalf of the rural district, he protested that they in the rural district should be saddled with this continual extra 1d. in the £1; he objected against their being called upon to provide rooms, not only for public meetings, but even for recreation. The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bousfield) said, the cost of providing the room would be partly met by the sum that would be subscribed by the local gentry; therefore, they were not only to be called upon to subscribe, but they were to be taxed for the maintenance of the room afterwards. Anyone who knew anything of village parish life would know that to erect a hall or room by public rates for the purposes mentioned would be absurd, and would be overloading the Bill with provisions that were of no use.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, the question was whether, as the Bill provided for recreation out-of-doors, power should not be also given to provide recreation indoors? As he understood, the Amendment was moved in the temperance interest, and in order to draw people away from the public house, and provide a place of meeting where people were not compelled to imbibe spirits and other deleterious liquors. Could the room be provided under the term "other public purposes"? The right hon. Gentleman thought it could; but the draftsman evidently thought not, for after giving power to provide or acquire land for public offices and so forth, the draftsman proceeded in paragraph (b) to give the Council power to— Provide or acquire land for such buildings and for a recreation ground, and for public works; therefore, it seemed to him that a recreation ground came under a different category to that of public offices and " other public purposes," and that the recreation room would not be included. He thought, if they were to do anything for the improvement of village life, it was of the utmost importance they should give them power to acquire recreation rooms as was suggested by the Amendment. It was of far more importance, considering the nature of our climate and the conditions of village life, that they should have these rooms than that they should have a recreation ground —that they should have some place for recreation protected from the weather. He did not think it would add to the expenses of the parish, as it was purely a question of choice between the various purposes with which the Council would have power to deal.

MR. BOUSFIELD

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had spoken with some confidence on the question of drafting; but he had not been supported by any legal opinion on the subject. At present he took a wholly different view to that of the right hon. Gentleman; but, at all events, it was a matter of extreme doubt as to whether "other public purposes" included purposes such as those he was contending for by his Amendment. In the sub-section they had "recreation ground" expressly mentioned, and there was the implication that it was only intended to give that. The right hon. Gentleman said he was in sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment, and only objected to it because it was already provided for in the Bill. He accepted that, and appealed to him whether he would leave it in an ambiguous position, or, by adopting the Amendment, render it perfectly clear? As a number of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had said they agreed with him, he put it to them that there was certainly grave doubt whether this was provided for by the clause; and, as he considered the matter of so much importance, if he could get anyone to tell with him, he would certainly go to a Division, and he would ask those hon. Gentlemen who said they agreed with him to vote for him.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

said, he wished to express his regret that the last two Amendments moved from that side of the House had been in the direction of increasing the expenditure. Parish rooms were all very well, and might be places of light and learning; almshouses were all very well, and they were likely to want them before very long; but there seemed to be no one who eared for the poor ratepayer except the President of the Local Government Board and the Member for Epping (Colonel Lockwood). Recreation rooms might be all very well in Hackney; he had no doubt they were; but when wages in the rural parishes were down to 11s., he would suggest the line should be drawn somewhere, and, therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman went to a Division he would vote against him.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 264.—(Division List, No. 346.)

MR. J. LOWTHER moved to omit the words at the end of the sub-section, "and other public purposes." The hon. Gentleman who moved the last Amendment, which in the opinion of the great bulk of the Committee proposed to enter on an expenditure which was extremely dangerous, was told by the President of the Local Government Board that all he wanted could be done under the words "and other public purposes," and that, therefore, there was no need for the words proposed by the hon. Gentleman to be inserted in the Bill in order to enable the Parish Councils to do these works. The words "and other public purposes" were, therefore, dangerously vague. There was hardly anything, however profligate, which any Public Body or any section of that body might take it into their heads to do which might not be covered by such ambiguous words. He invited the Law Officers of the Crown to give a definition of the words. He did not think the Committee would be justified in allowing the words to remain in the Bill, except they had it on the distinct authority of the Law Officers of the Crown that no dangerous expenditure, of a character to which Parliament would not be likely to give its sanction, could be embarked on under these words.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, [line 17, to leave out the words "and other public purposes." — (Mr. J. Lowther.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Thirsk, already voted upon, decided the very point which is now raised. I therefore put it to the right hon. Gentleman, as one of the oldest and most experienced' and respected Members of the House, whether it is in accordance with the fair spirit of Parliamentary practice to debate again the same thing which the House-has decided upon by a majority of upwards of 90 two hours ago? The right hon. Gentleman must not think me discourteous if I decline to discuss the question after it has been fully discussed two hours ago.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk raised a totally different point. The point raised by his Amendment was that the words "and other public purposes" were vague, and were not understood by the President of the Local Government Board himself. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the spirit of Parliamentary practice. Well, speaking as one who had had nearly 30 years experience of Parliament, he declared that he had never known a case where words of this vague character were inserted in a Bill in the presence of the Law Officers without any attempt to define them. It was essential the Committee should know what they were committing themselves to, and he submitted he was fully entitled to insist on their being informed of what the words really meant by the Solicitor General who was present.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, it was all very well for the President of the Local Government Board to object to the discussion; but the Committee were entitled to get a definition of the words from the Solicitor General. He desired to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the words, for example, would allow of a room being erected for the parishioners to play skittles in during the winter months?

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said the Committee were entitled to an answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman. [Ministerial cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members might cry "Divide" as long as they liked, but this was a very important question, and could not be decided in that manner. It could be answered in one word: either yes or no. They wanted to know the meaning of what they were asked to do, and there had been no answer from the Government; they had now, however, the advantage of the presence of the Solicitor General.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that an answer from the Government would save time and avoid a Division. But he should like to give another reason why the Committee were entitled to an explanation of the words. Undoubtedly, the spending power of the village would be limited to the 1d. rate, and as they did not desire the village to spend the rate on foolish things when there were good and essential things to be provided, it would be well if the Solicitor General would stand up and tell the Committee what "other public purposes" really meant.

MR. ACLAND

I would like, in answer to the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London, to recall the course of the Debate and the statements of the President of the Local Government Board on the point on which we are now pressed for information. The whole of this question as to the meaning of the words "and other public purposes" was raised nearly two hours ago. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board made two speeches on the subject. He said he would not go further than to say that "other public purposes" included a certain number of useful purposes which he was not prepared to forego, and that a security against extravagance lay in the limitation of the rate to 1d. My right hon. Friend repeated that twice over; we cannot say more; and I therefore hope the Committee will come to a decision on the Amendment at once.

MR. COURTNEY

I must respectfully protest against the attitude taken by the Government. We have a right to inquire of the Law Officer of the Crown what the meaning of the provision is and what we are being asked to assent to. Suppose a Parish Council under the supposed or real powers of the clause as it stands undertook to erect a covered building for a skating rink or skittle ground, or any other purpose of public recreation, would it be possible for a ratepayer to file a bill to restrain the Council from so doing on the ground that it was outside their powers, and that they were confined to buildings for meetings and other public purposes? I think we have a right to an answer to that question from the Law Officer of the Crown,

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, he had been present two hours ago, and to his mind the statements of the President of the Local Government Board were not at all clear on the point.

SIR J. RIGBY

It is a matter of indifference to me in one sense whether I answer questions or not. I shall always be anxious to answer, but I am in this position: that the Government have expressed their view, and the whole matter has been fought out on a previous Amendment. Therefore, I think no encouragement ought to be given to reopening the question. As regards the meaning of the words "other public purposes," I protest once and for all against the doctrine that the Law Officers are bound to define. I am not prepared to define what "public purposes" are. After all, the question must arise when a case is presented. "Public purposes" occur again and again in Acts of Parliament, and it is for the Courts to decide upon them. I do not wish, however, in any way to conceal my opinion. I consider the words most general, and if they were not accompanied by explanatory words and regulated by the strict provision against undue expenditure they might be somewhat dangerous. But, inasmuch as they are accompanied by words showing what the powers in general of the Parish Councils are, and inasmuch as the expenditure is, except in very wealthy parishes, limited to a very small amount, why, then, I conceive it is not so important to go into the meaning. I will answer the specific question put to me. Here we have a Public Body which is intrusted with powers, among other things, for the recreation of their constituents, and in the case of a Parish Council, being within the expenditure, undertaking to provide any means of recreation for the parishioners, I would not recommend anyone to apply to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain them, because I do not believe he would get it.

MR. W. LONG

said, that the opinion laid down by the learned Solicitor General perfectly justified the Amendment and those who supported it. The President of the Local Government Board, in his reply, largely directed his attention to the fact that the introduction of the words proposed by the hon. Member for Thirsk would be a great limitation to the powers of the Parish Council. But what they pressed was for an interpretation of the words "other public purposes." It might be an argument—but it was an argument of a very limited character—to say that if a Parish Council were inclined to be extravagant the ratepayers had a protection in the fact that the rate for these public purposes were limited to 1d. in the £1. They ought to put into the four corners of the Act in plain language what were the powers they were going to confer on the Local Authorities, and not leave any possibility of doubt in the matter.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 189; Noes 101.—(Division List, No. 347.)

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

said, the Amendment he wished to introduce was to enable the Parish Council to acquire by agreement houses for the working classes. He did not wish to introduce the subject of the housing of the working classes into this Amendment, but to remove the difficulty that existed in some of their rural villages in the way of obtaining homes for the labourers. In the rural villages a large number of cottages were being pulled down in consequence of the owners not now being in a position to repair them, and as a result the labourers were being driven into the towns. All he wanted was to enable the Parish Council to hire these houses from the landowners or the owners of the cottages so that they could repair and put them into a habitable condition. In one particular instance in his constituency no less than 40 houses, during the period between 1881 and 1891, had been pulled down and the land turned into a farm because the landowner was unable to repair them and place them in a habitable condition. His Amendment, therefore, was of considerable interest to the landowners themselves, and would enable them to tide over the present serious depression in agriculture. There was no confiscation in removing the tenure of these houses for a certain time from the landowners to the Parish Council who would become the trustees. In their rural villages there was a great desire on the part of the agricultural labourers to obtain cottages on a certain and secure tenure. At present they found that from 25 to 75 per cent of the cottages were in the hands of the occupying tenant farmers, and the result was that these agricultural labourers were in the position of being turned out of their houses at a moment's notice. If they were to make the allotments question a real success they must give a tenure to the cottagers, such as would make them feel they could cultivate their land to their own advantage. He maintained there would be no loss to the parishes themselves, and he would give an example of how it might be worked. Suppose the owner of the cottages was not in a position to put the cottages in repair, and the Sanitary Inspector had condemned them as unfit for habitation, then the owner must either let them remain empty or pull them down. In that case the Parish Council could if they chose—it was entirely voluntary on their part—agree with the landowner to pay, say, a nominal annual rent of 5s. per cottage, and by borrowing from the County Council £100 could repair the cottages and let them at from £4 to £5 a year each to tenants who by their industry and regular habits showed they were fit to be taken as tenants. The County Council would be satisfied with the security of the parish, and in the course of a few years the parish would have repaid the loan, and would be securing a profit, so that there would be no loss to the ratepayers at all. It would also be a great benefit to the landowners, because at the end of the agreed period they would have their property restored to them in good and habitable condition. What they wanted in their rural villages was an increase rather than a decrease of population, and he believed that his Amendment would be likely to keep the labourers from going off to the towns.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 17, after the word " purposes," to insert the words " and to acquire by agreement houses for the working classes."— (Mr. Fuller.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

sympathised with the object his hon. Friend had in view, and he thought everyone desired, if they could, to improve the condition of these cottages, but what they had to ask themselves was whether it was possible to do so in this Bill. At the present time, he was informed, there was no such power as that suggested vested in any existing body in the Kingdom; the only power for dealing with the houses of the working classes was contained in the Act of 1890, and his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) raised that question yesterday in an interesting speech, in which he pointed out the advantage of transferring by this Act some such power to the Rural Sanitary Authority, but the hon. Gentleman was content to ask merely the judgment of the House in favour of giving the Parish Council certain powers, and that proposal was passed without a dissentient voice. But the answer he gave yesterday was really the answer he must give to his hon. Friend to-day; they could not add to the powers of the Parish Council beyond those which were at present included in the Bill, or arose therein and out of it. His hon. Friend thought that by adopting his Amendment the parish would run no risk; but if there were any risk arising out of the speculation, if they liked to call it such, or philanthropic action or arrangement, whatever risk there might be, would fall on the ratepayers of the parish. He did not say that Parliament, at some time or other, might not endow Parish Councils with this power; but if he might venture to repeat what he said yesterday, it was that this measure was a great experiment. They were creating a new and untried body, and some hon. Members opposite thought they were advancing too far— that they were giving this Authority too much power. They had carefully considered the power they proposed to confer upon it, and by their proposals they were prepared to stand; but they thought the wiser and safer course was to let the machinery they proposed be created, let the body come into existence, let it prove its capacity for the work thrown upon it, let it acquire the confidence of the ratepayers, the country, and Parliament, and then he was sure that, in the long run, Parliament would be most willing to extend the powers of the Parish Councils. Though he had great sympathy with the object of the hon. Gentleman, he must ask him not to press his Amendment.

MR. FULLER

said that, after the kind way in which the Amendment had been received by the right hon. Gentleman, and the sort of understanding that in the near future the subject would be dealt with by Parliament, he begged to withdraw the Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

IS it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn— [Cries of "No, no!"]

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

hoped there was no such promise as the hon. Member seemed to imagine. There was no more important or urgent question in the rural districts than this question of the condition of the cottages, but it was a large and difficult matter, and no one ought to venture to express an opinion without studying the Report of the Assistant Labour Commissioners, and without looking at the Reports as to the working of the Labourers' Acts in Ireland. He merely rose to express the hope that no such promise as was imagined would be given.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

said the words "provide or" were mere surplusage, and he therefore moved their omission.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 18, to leave out the words "provide or."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he considered the words were necessary, and he must retain them.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 6, line 25, after "1890," insert "in relation to recreation grounds or public walks.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

wished for an explanation of Sub-clause (c). The sub-clause was for the purpose of allowing the Parish Council to maintain and keep in order the pleasure grounds which they might acquire or get under the Improvement Act of 1860. But it went on to say they were to have control over any grounds or lands to which they had contributed. He knew several cases, and there were many others, where the owner of land had given some portion to the parish for a recreation 'ground on condition that the parish maintained it.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

asked what the Question was that was before the Committee?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, he would move to omit the words, and would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be very careful lest a serious damage were done to the parishioners. When a landowner gave a field or piece of land for the use of the parish he did not give up his freehold rights, and if, under this Bill, the contribution of the parish for the maintenance of the ground and keeping it in order was to take the control out of the hands of the freeholder they would find that landowners would be very chary of letting the parish have any land at all. They wished to encourage grants of land, but he was afraid that this Sub-clause (c) would have the opposite effect.

MR. H. H. FOWLER moved— In page 6, line 25, after "1890," to insert "in relation to recreation grounds or public walks.

He explained that the object of the Amendment was simply to provide that where a Parish Council, as the Urban Authority, had contributed to the support of public walks, they should be able to make bye-laws, so that these public walks could be kept in order.

Amendment agreed to.

^*MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.) moved the following Amendment:— In page 6, line 26, before "to," insert "by agreement with any person entitled thereto or interested therein.

He said, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had put down an Amendment which, to a certain extent, covered the ground of this Amendment; but he could not help thinking the words he proposed were preferable to those of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposition was to give the Parish Council power to utilise any supply of water within their parish, and he proposed to amend that clause by inserting at the commencement of it— By agreement with any person entitled thereto or interested therein.

These words would clearly limit the right of the Parish Council to appropriate or deal with any spring belonging to private people to cases of agreement with those who were entitled to it or interested in it. The right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment proposed to withdraw the sub-clause and instead to provide that— Where they can do so without interfering with the rights of any Water Company, Conservancy Authority, Sanitary Authority, or private person, to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish and provide facilities for obtaining water there from.

He could not help thinking that that was not so clear as the Amendment which he had suggested. The right hon. Gentleman in his proposal said— Without interfering with the rights of any Water Company. Conservancy Authority, Sanitary Authority, or private person.

But there were a great many persons interested in springs and wells who would be interfered with, but who were willing to let the public have the use of the water on terms, and, therefore, a power of agreement was necessary. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 26, before the word "to," to insert the words "by agreement with any person entitled thereto or interested therein."— —(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member thought his own Amendment best. Most parents thought their own children were the best, and he (Mr. Fowler) thought his Amendment was the best too. This clause was the one which, perhaps not very respectfully, was called the village pump clause. . The object of the clause was not to construct expensive waterworks or embark in large schemes for a water supply. The original idea of the framers of the Bill was that there was in many rural parishes a spring, a well, or a stream which no one cared for, and which no one looked after, but which, if taken care of, would be of public advantage. Hence the clause was drafted as it appeared in the Bill. But it was pointed out to him on the Second Reading, and in communications from hon. Members, both privately and by letter, that there would be a possibility of serious interference with the rights of private property. That he had never contemplated, and what he proposed to do was to omit Sub-section (d), and to move in substitution thereof— Where they can do so without interfering with the rights of any Water Company, Conservancy Authority, Sanitary Authority, or private person, to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish, and provide facilities for obtaining water therefrom. If anybody else might possibly be interfered with he should be glad to put in words to cover that case, but he thought he had covered every possible case. With regard to the words suggested by the hon. Member as to this being by agreement with somebody, whom were they to agree with? In the variety of cases it would be difficult to ascertain who the real owner was, and under these circumstances he thought they could not have a much better safeguard than that he had suggested in his Amendment, which he begged to move.

Amendment proposed, In page 6, line 26, to leave out Sub-section (d), and insert the words, "Where they can do . so without interfering with the rights of any Water Company, Conservancy Authority, Sanitary Authority, or private person, to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish, and provide facilities for obtaining water therefrom."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

was surprised to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that his advisers at the Local Government Board were of opinion that there were a number of wells and springs in rural parts of the country which nobody cared about and attached no value to. If there was a subject which provoked controversy, and as to the use of which people were properly and rightly tenacious, it was the use of water when it existed. Might he venture to suggest that this clause really did not cover every possible case? The right hon. Gentleman only preserved the rights of Water Companies, Conservancy Authorities, Sanitary Authorities, or private persons. But one parish might have a very great interest in a stream which came down to it from another parish. Surely the rights of every Public Authority—county or parochial— ought to be preserved as well as those of Sanitary Authorities. Again, he should like to ask, did the expression "private person" include a Company or Corporation? because they had valuable rights also. He hoped the Law Officers would see that those words covered all rights, whether private or public, in streams which passed from one parish to another, because there were no rights more necessary to be preserved than these. Finally, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman had he not rather put the cart before the horse by his Amendment, and whether, in fact, it ought not to read— to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish and provide facilities for obtaining water therefrom, where they can do so without interfering with the rights of any Water Company, Conservancy Authority, Sanitary Authority, or private person? Surely that would be better English?

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, there was another important omission to which he desired to call attention—namely, Canal Companies. Some of these Canal Companies had statutory rights to make use of streams, and it was to the interest of traders generally, whose goods were carried over these water-ways, that the rights of the Canal Companies should be preserved.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, there were other companies he should like to mention. Take the case of Colliery Companies, the boilers connected with collieries would not work unless they were able to draw water from the pit. Such a case was not met by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, which ought to cover all public rights whatever.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was very anxious that the Amendment should cover every case. He would, therefore, propose to amend his Amendment by adding after the words "Sanitary Authority," the words "Local Authority, Corporation, or person." He was told that if they put in these words, striking out "private" before person, they would cover all the cases.

SIR F. S. POWELL

Would that cover the case of a canal?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Certainly; a Canal Company is a Corporation.

SIR R. PAGET

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered the question of a possible interference with the action of Sanitary Authorities in providing water supplies? He knew in his own neighbourhood that the Sanitary Authority was busy in every direction in providing a water supply, and if these powers were given to the parishes as well they would have two sets of people doing the same work in the same place. He hoped this question would be carefully considered, as there could be nothing more mischievous than this dual control.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, and as it might be shut out by this one he should like to say a few words. He had been asked by many influential people to move the omission of this sub-section altogether, on the ground that the arrangement of the water supply was too large a question for the Parish Council, and that there might be interference with the property of the Water Companies. These companies had been formed with great trouble and at great expense, and large accumulation of capital, and they had obtained powers from the House of Commons to carry out their objects. It was therefore important that their rights to supply water to particular localities should be guarded from interference by the officials of the Parish Council.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they could not interfere with the rights of any Water Company. If those who had rights said "no," then nothing could be done. This was a most harmless, but a most useful, power. He did appeal to the Committee to grant this power to the Parish Councils, which was carefully guarded from any interference with any private, public, or any corporate right whatever.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

cordially sympathised with what the right hon. Gentleman desired to accomplish, but the wording by which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to carry out his object was, if he might say so, rather eccentric. The right hon. Member for Bristol had suggested that this Amendment was the wrong way about. He rather agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that what was last ought to come first, and what was first last. Another more serious objection, as he construed the Amendment, was that according to its strict construction it would be impossible for a parish to enter into any agreement with any of these authorities, because if they bought out the right of a company or a private owner they did interfere with that right. They took it away, and no interference could be more absolute. He supposed his right hon. Friend proposed to allow them to buy these rights by agreement. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] Then the operation of this clause would be extremely restricted. Why should it not be so arranged that a parish should be able to buy the right of setting up a pump or trough on the side of a road, which was an interference with the right of the person to whom the stream belonged? Why should they restrict the Parish Council from undertaking such a function if the proprietor of the stream did not object? If there was no power to do this by agreement then the clause would have a very restricted operation. He began by saying that the drafting of the clause was eccentric, and he must end by saying its purpose was eccentric. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the position he had taken up, not only in regard to the way in which he had expressed his design, but also as to the scope and purport of the design itself.

COMMANDER BETHELL

thought the right hon. Gentleman was doing good service in putting some clause of this nature into the Bill. There was a considerable difference between the powers given by this clause to the Parish Authorities and the powers exercised by the Sanitary Authorities. This only allowed the utilisation of an existing water supply, but the duty of the Sanitary Authority might go not only to utilising existing but also to providing a fresh source of supply. He thought it only proper that the rights of private persons should be preserved, and he regarded this clause as most valuable.

Amendment amended, by leaving out the words "or private," and inserting the words "Local Authority, Corporation, or."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "person," to insert the words "or by agreement with any such Company, Authority, Corporation, or person."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)

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

MR. HANBURY

could not quite see the purpose of the Amendment. The Parish Council had not got authority to buy, so what on earth was the use of giving them any power by agreement?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Member for Preston has given my answer.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, the usefulness of the clause would be extended if the Parish Council had the power to make an agreement in order to secure a good water supply.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

thought the Amendment a very reasonable one, and said that the clause would be almost worthless without it. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, the supply of water might come from another parish different from the one which required the supply, and might go to a third parish; therefore, it was important there should be some settlement between the several parishes. That was to say, if any parish desired to utilise the supply of any area it should have the power of contracting with the neighbouring parishes concerned—namely, the parish from which the supply of water came and the parish to which the water went.

It being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.