COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st January]

HC Deb 02 January 1894 vol 20 cc664-752

[TWENTY-NINTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Sir J. GOLDSMID, Deputy Chairman, in the Chair.]

Clause 24 (Powers of Council of rural district).

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, that when the House adjourned on the previous evening he was moving an Amendment which had for its object the affording of a readier mode of conferring urban powers on Rural Authorities. There were no fewer than 81 Orders of this character made in the course of last year in response to demands for larger powers, such powers including those of watering streets, restraining nuisances, enforcing drainage and providing for the extinction of fires. It would save a great deal of labour to the Central Department and would also facilitate the settlement of small local questions if power were conferred on County Councils to extend urban powers by special Orders of their own. County Councils already possessed the much more important power of making an Order creating an urban district. The small powers he now proposed to give them might well take the place of this larger power, and thus make it unnecessary to carve a small Urban Authority out of rural districts.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 11, after the word "order," to insert the words "or the County Council by special order."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

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

Under Section 276 of the Public Health Act of 1875 the Local Government Board may upon application give urban powers to any Rural Sanitary Authority. We have just inserted in the clause a sub-section providing that Rural District Councils shall have such powers of Urban Sanitary Authorities under the Public Health Act or any other Act as the Local Government Board may by general Order direct. The present power can only be exercised in individual cases. The powers which my hon. Friend wishes to introduce, and which I agree are quite desirable to be introduced, can only be granted now on the application I think of the Rural Council itself or of a certain number of electors. What he proposes is that they shall be granted by the County Council by special Order. The objection to that is that you would have two concurrent jurisdictions—two authorities giving powers under the Public Health Act—which I think would not be desirable. On the other hand, I think it would be advantageous that the County Council should be introduced into this matter. I would suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw this Amendment. He has a later Amendment on this clause with reference to substituting the Parish Council for a certain number of local electors. I propose, if he will withdraw his Amendment, to introduce this sub-section at the end of the clause— The powers conferred on the Local Government Board by the said Section 276 or by any enactment applying that section may be exercised on the application of the County Council or with respect to any parish or part of a parish, on the application of the Parish Council of that parish. That will enable the County Council to at once approach the Local Government Board.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the right hon. Gentleman had gone a long way towards meeting his object, and he would therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

moved the insertion of the following words at the end of line 11:— And in such case the provisions of Section 15 of this Act shall apply to default in the exercise of such powers by the Councils of rural districts. He said, ho brought the Amendment forward first on Clause 15, but was told that it would come better on the present clause. Under Clause 15 the Parish Councils had power to complain to the County Council in case the District Council failed to carry out the provisions of the Public Health Act. Ho wished the Parish Council to have a similar power with regard to the other Acts under which the District Council had powers.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 11, at end, to insert the words "and in such case the provisions of Section 15 of this Act shall apply to default in the exercise of such powers by the Councils of rural districts."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

This Amendment extends to all the powers conferred by this clause, and the objection to it is that although you may give a Local Authority power you cannot enforce the exercise of it unless it has become a duty. There are a large number of these powers which are discretionary. I do not know whether the hon. Member has any particular power in mind which he wishes to see enforced, but I may point out that any default of the District Council in repairing a highway is provided for by Section 10 of the Act of 1878, which provides that when complaint is made to the County Authority—now the County Council—that a Highway Authority has made default in the maintaining or repairing of any of the highways in that district and the County Authority are satisfied that the Highway Authority have been guilty of negligence they may make an Order calling on them to do their duty, and, if it is not performed, may appoint some person to perform it, and may direct the payment of reasonable remuneration, and so on. So far, I think that that would meet the case of the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY

said, the words "or any other Act" were so large that he could not think that all the duties covered by them would be discretionary. He should be glad to alter his Amendment so as to make it refer only to powers which ought to be exercised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 45, at end, to insert as a new sub-section, "The powers conferred on the Local Government Board by the said Section 276, or by any enactment applying that section, may be exercised on the application of the County Council or, with respect to any parish or part of a parish, on the application of the Parish Council of that parish.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)

said, he felt bound, as the Representative of a rural district, to protest in the strongest way possible against a clause which contained provisions for delegating powers over roads to a district instead of to the parishes to which they properly belonged. To those who were anxious that the Bill should be really workable it was a matter for regret that a measure which gave to the parish power to look after their own affairs took out of their hands the management of the roads, which were amongst the principal things in which the parishioners would be interested, and handed it over to a District Council. For some years past people in the country had been busy in trying to get rid of Highway Boards, and in Essex they had succeeded in getting rid of all of them but two. Now that they had obtained this result the old state of things was to be practically restored, and the management of the roads was to be handed over to the district. In many parishes the roads were extremely good, while in contiguous parishes they were extremely old; in fact, in driving at night it was sometimes possible to tell by the state of the roads when one passed from one parish into another. The right hon. Gentleman had promised that all roads before being included in a district should be certified by the County Council. This, however, would tend to expense, and a great many districts would be unable to get their roads in proper order, in the opinion of the county surveyor, to be taken over. He had known of many parishes which were anxious to have their highways turned into main roads, and had spent enormous sums with the object of conforming to the wishes of the county surveyor without in some cases having ever succeeded in doing so. The hon. Member for North Somerset (Mr. Warner) had talked about farmers only mending roads when they had nothing else to do, thus showing that he was not in the least acquainted with the subject upon which he spoke. The hon. Member represented a rural constituency in which he did not live, and spoke of an urban district in which he did live. In urban districts this clause might be carried out very well, but in rural districts it would cause great expense to the authorities.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he was very glad that his hon. and gallant Friend had raised this question again, and that he had shown the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) that there was some cause for the re-consideration of the clause before the Bill left the House. Although other questions might be of more permanent importance, he knew of none which was so likely as this of the roads to cause immediate difficulty and confusion. The right hon. Gentleman was very fond of referring to the Act of 1888, but he could hardly be aware of the reform that Act had effected in highway administration. The badness of many roads to which frequent reference had been made had been largely reduced by the reforms carried out under the Act of 1888. The County Council had been obliged constantly to say that the district surveyor was doing his work badly, and the result had been that the Highway Board or the Parish Authority had found it necessary to terminate the employment of the local surveyor, and either to hand the work over to the county surveyor or to employ somebody else. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this point between now and the Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him for saying it seemed nothing short of ridiculous for him to tell the House that the transference of these highway powers was a matter which was vital to the Bill itself. If the right hon. Gentleman did not accept the very reasonable suggestion made yesterday he would find that he had provided for himself in this measure a degree of unpopularity of which at the present he had very little idea. He did not want to bring against the right hon. Gentleman, who had always treated the Opposition with the utmost courtesy and fairness, a charge of bad faith, but he had been thunderstruck yesterday when the right hon. Gentleman offered the Committee an absolute non possumus. Inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman had said, when the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse) moved his Amendment, that that was not the proper time to do so, he (Mr. Long) certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have met the Opposition at this point. He hoped that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman would decide to make the measure more practicable and workable on this point than it was at present.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said that, as a resident and as a landowner in a very largo parish, where he believed the parish roads wore quite as good if not better than the highways, he wished to say that it would be a great disappointment to his friends and neighbours if by this Bill the control of their roads were taken away from them. To those parishes which were weakly administered this clause might possibly be desirable, but to those which wore well administered it would be a great grievance, and he warned the Government that if the clause passed in its present shape it would give rise to great dissatisfaction in many parishes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 25 (Duties of District Council as to right of way and roadside wastes).

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 18, to leave out the words "rights of way," and insert the word "highways."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That 'right of way' stand part of the Clause."

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said, that no doubt "highway" was a very general word, which would cover all public rights of way, but at the same time ho did not think that this was well understood. He had, as he had already said, never seen a highway over which there was not a public right of way. On the other hand, he saw no objection to the retention of the words of the clause, and he should prefer to leave the words as they were.

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

said, he considered "rights of way" a much better term than "highways," and hoped his hon. Friend would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 15, line 19, to leave out the words, "or reputed public.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved, in page 15, line 19, to leave out "footpath," and insert "highway." He understood the object of the clause—and a most excellent object it was—was to preserve the ways, which, though not metal roads, were in actual use. If that were so, the term "footpath" did not go far enough, for, besides actual footpaths, there were bridle paths and tracts of various kinds, useful for walking, riding, or driving, and, therefore, just as desirable to protect as footpaths. All he desired to do by his Amendment was to carry out the object of the Government more effectively, and as he considered that the word "highway" would cover all paths and tracts to which he had referred he hoped the Government would insert it in the Bill instead of "footpath."

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 19, to leave out the word "footpath," and insert the word "highway."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that personally he was rather inclined to favour the retention of "footpath," but, on the whole, he agreed with the Mover of the Amendment that they might, without any fear of being misunderstood, substitute "highway" for "footpath."

Question put, and negatived.

Question, "That 'highway' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

SIR F. S. POWELL

moved— In page 15, line 19, to insert after last Amendment, "except in the manner provided by the Highway Acts, 1835 to 1885, or other lawful manner. His object simply was to keep in operation the machinery provided by the Highway Act of 1835, for altering and closing up inconvenient footpaths in the interest of public convenience. Changes of this kind were constantly made at Quarter Sessions, under the Act of 1835, to the great advantage of the public. Some of these old paths were very in- convenient, and injuriously affected the development of properties.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 19, after last Amendment, to insert "except in the manner provided by the Highway Acts, 1835 to 1885, or other lawful manner."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he had not a word to say against the object aimed at by the hon. Baronet; but he ventured to suggest that the Amendment was not quite necessary. He agreed that the powers under the Highway Acts in altering or stopping in certain cases what had been highways were often exercised for the benefit of the public. If he saw any chance of the clause interfering with those powers he would willingly accept the Amendment; but looking at the phrasing of the clause it was plain that what they were dealing with was illegal and not legal modes of stopping highways. He was glad the hon. Baronet had called attention to the matter, for it enabled the Government to say that they had considered it, and did not think any alteration in the clause was necessary. The object of the hon. Baronet was already attained, and he asked him, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, that when a road was stopped up hitherto it was done with the consent of the inhabitants of the district. But to a certain extent in this clause power was given to any of the inhabitants of a district to prevent a road being stopped up in that district. He thought they should secure that the wishes of the majority were not over-ridden by the wishes of a few of the inhabitants.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Government had considered that point also, and they had come to the conclusion that it would be necessary to make some alteration in the clause as to the power of any of the inhabitants in the matter, because a road might be beneficial to some of the inhabitants, and at the same time the stoppage of that road might be of advantage to the district in general. He was, therefore, prepared on the part of the Government to insert words providing that the Parish Council should take into consideration the advantage or disad- vantage to the district of any proposed action with respect to footpaths or rights of way before such action was taken. If the hon. Baronet withdrew his Amendment he would at the proper time move the insertion of words to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Preston.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 15, line 20, to leave out the word "footpath," and insert the word "highway.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved to omit from line 20 of the clause the words "or without," which he considered too vague. He would propose to insert later on "or in an adjoining district," which he considered a much better form of words.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 20, to leave out the words "or without."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. W. LONG

said, ho hoped the Government would accept the Amendment. They did not want those District Authorities trampling into each others territories to exercise those powers.

MR. HANBURY

said, that if the words were retained any District Council might take proceedings with regard to rights of way in an adjoining county, or a Parish Council might appeal to a Council of a totally different county against its own District Council in respect to rights of way, and the County Council of that totally different county might, in consequence, take over the duties of the District Council in question.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, there was another difficulty that would arise from the retention of the words. If they were to impose upon a District Council the duty of stopping a highway in another district the Council of that other district might take a different view of the matter, and consequently a conflict as to the highway would be precipitated between these districts.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, he did not think the Amendment would meet the difficulty which had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Preston.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he was too much in sympathy with the object of the Amendment to ask that it should be withdrawn. He thought that there was some objection to District Councils interfering with rights of way in an adjoining district in another county; but he submitted that it was desirable that a District Council should have the right to protect a road in an adjoining district in the same county. It might well be that a road in a district might be of vast importance to an adjoining district, and of no importance at all to the district of which it was an actual part. Therefore, if the hon. Member's Amendment were carried, he would propose to substitute for the omitted words, the words "or in an adjoining district of the same county."

MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)

said, the Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman would not meet the point raised as to a conflict between two districts as to the desirability of stopping or not stopping a road. Such questions should be dealt with only by agreement between the two Councils concerned.

MR. W. LONG

said, that this question required a, little more consideration. County Councils and Boards of Guardians had often duties to discharge outside their own counties or Union areas; bur according to the present system they could only work in a different area through the Local Authority governing that area. He would point out also the adjoining districts would be frequently districts of a different character. For instance, they had urban districts adjoining rural districts, and he thought the Council of no urban district should have the power to go to work in an adjoining rural district, unless with the consent of the Council of that district.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, it might be that to stop a road would be an advantage to one district, and a disadvantage or prejudice to the other district, bill it was to the Council of the district which would be prejudiced by the stopping of the road that the duty set forth in the clause was given. The Government intended later on to deal with the question of joint decisions of District Councils in order to carry out a joint object. He ventured to think that the conflict of jurisdiction between District Councils was more apparent than real, and for those reasons the Government did not intend to depart from the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 15, line 21, after the first "district," to insert the words "or in an adjoining district.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 21, to leave out the words "is beneficial to any inhabitants of the district," and insert the words "is of such a nature that the stoppage of the obstruction thereof would be prejudicial to the inhabitants of their district."—(Sir J. Rigby.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'is beneficial to any inhabitants of the district' stand part of the Clause."

MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

asked whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would be prepared to insert the words "in their opinion" before the word "prejudicial" in his Amendment, because, as the Amendment stood, it would not be in the power of the District Council to decide the question?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he accepted the addition to his Amendment.

Question, "That the words 'is beneficial to any inhabitants of the district,' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

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

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper— To insert, in page 15, line 21, after the second "district," the words, "and keep in repair all public footpaths, footbridges, gates, and stiles within the district, with the object of securing that footpaths, footbridges, gates, and stiles were kept in order and in a commodious state for the public. But as gates and stiles were part of a fence, and it was the duty of the owner or occupier to repair them, and as his Amendment would only have the effect of relieving the owner or the occupier of the cost of repairing them, he did not propose to move it. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to secure the object he had in view on some future clause of the Bill.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

moved to insert— In page 15, line 21, after the second "district," the words "and to aid persons in maintaining rights of common where, in the opinion of the Council, the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the inhabitants of the district. The Amendment, to which he was sure no one would object, simply left the rights of common exactly where they were, and only provided means, which were not available at present, for the protection of these rights. It was true that statutes existed for the protection and regulation of commons, but, nevertheless, in various parts of the country, commons were encroached upon, not by landlords, but by people who counted on the difference on the subject which existed amongst the people at large to annex corners of commons with impunity. The Amendment would give the initiative to the District Council to protect existing rights of common, and the provision was carefully guarded to decide whether public injury was involved in any case where a right of commons was extinguished. If they were of opinion that the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the inhabitants of the district they should be empowered to spend money to aid in preventing it.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 21, after the second "district," to insert the words, "and to aid persons in maintaining rights of common where, in the opinion of the Council, the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the inhabitants of the district."—(Mr. Picton.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he had considerable sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and he was authorised to state that the Government would accept it in a modified form. The Amendment as it stood might involve the District Council in litigation, which might prove a most costly matter. There was nothing so deceptive as a case in which one was trying to assert a right to property. Before one knew where one was one was involved in expenses very often of a most extraordinary character. What be would suggest was that the District Council should have power to do what the hon. Member proposed, not that it should be their duty, and that might be done if the Committee adopted the Amendment with this modification— And they may aid persons in maintaining the rights of common where, in the opinion of the Council, the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the inhabitants of the district. There were many cases where the enclosure of commons might alter the whole character of the neighbourhood, not only to the prejudice of the commoners, but of the whole community.

MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)

said, he was fully in sympathy with the Amendment; but he believed that unless some check was placed on the District Council in the matter, such for instance as placing it under the control of the County Council, the ratepayers would often be landed in great expense. He had always heard that any litigation connected with common rights was about the most expensive of lawsuits. He would therefore suggest that the Solicitor General should put in words for the purpose of preventing excessive expense. As to the object of the Amendment, everybody was of opinion that our commons should be preserved by every means in our power.

MR. PICTON

said, he was willing to accept the words suggested by the Solicitor General.

SIR J. RIGBY

suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, with a view to its being subsequently inserted in a more suitable place.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. VICARY GIBBS

proposed to insert in line 22, after the word "encroachment," the words, "they may consider injurious. He knew cases of roadside wastes where the line of fence in one place came too close to the road, and in another place too far away. The landlords in those cases were often willing to put up a new and straight fence which would convenience the public as well as the landlord, and the object of his Amendment was to leave it to the Council to say whether such encroachments on roadside wastes were injurious to the public or not.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 22, after the word "encroachment," to insert the words, "they may consider injurious.

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he thought encroachments on roadside wastes had been carried to an extreme which had been most injurious to the public. It ought to be the duty of the District Councils to prevent such encroachments, and he would be sorry, by accepting the Amendment, to open the door for arrangements, which would be a temptation to give up that part of the patrimony of the public—the roadside wastes—which was still preserved to us. He thought it better to make it the duty of the Councils to protect those wastes, and not to introduce into the Bill words which might lead to further encroachments.

MR. W. LONG

said, it was frequently the case that the wastes bordering a road varied, and if was manifestly for the convenience of the public that roadside wastes should be uniform, and, where the waste was narrow, that it should be widened. Therefore, he thought the Amendment ought to be accepted.

MR. HANBURY

said, he should like to have from the Solicitor General a definition of roadside waste? Suppose a roadside waste was 20 or 30 yards from the middle of a road, should the landlord have no power to enclose some of it? In country districts there was a popular idea that the landlord could enclose the waste at a certain distance from the middle of the road. It was certainly done, and, in fact, he bad done it himself.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he knew there was a prevalent idea that a landlord might enclose anything on the side of the road up to within 15 feet of the middle of the road, and that had been acted upon by people who did not know the law. That had been the doctrine of landlords and agents, and a great deal of mischief had consequently been done. He did not care to define a roadside waste; but in a general way he would say that whatever had for a long time been outside the fence adjoining the fields and unfenced from the road was just as much part of the road as the middle of t he road itself. Primâ facie there was strong presumption that every part of waste or unoccupied land by the side of a highway formed part of a highway. It was altogether a wrong idea that any owner whose land came up to the borders of a highway had a right to enclose any part of that highway when it had been used by the public along with the rest of the road.

MR. JEFFREYS

quite agreed with the Solicitor General that there had always been a popular error about roadside wastes, and that nobody ought legally to enclose such roadside wastes. But he would remark that these enclosures had been generally made by small and not by large landowners. He wished to put to the hon. and learned Gentleman a case which came before the County Council of Hampshire at their last meeting. An adjoining owner found one portion of the road very narrow, and then there was a portion of waste which made the road very broad, and this gentleman asked whether he could make a straight fence and ditch so as to enlarge the road at one side, and contract it at the waste portion a little further on. There was no monetary payment at all, but it was for the benefit of the people using the road that it should be a good width all along. He wanted to ask the Solicitor General if they passed this clause would the County Council be prevented from making such an arrangement as that? If they were, the result would be very detrimental, and would be a source of great harm to people using a road. Sometimes a county road was inconveniently narrow, and if there was a broad strip in one place and a narrow strip a little further on, surely power ought to be given to the District Council to come to an arrangement such as he had indicated. He desired to know if the passing of this clause would operate in preventing such arrangements?

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

asked the Solicitor General was it not the fact that this sub-section of the clause was nothing more than explanatory, the clause itself enforcing no more powers than were already possessed by the Highway Authorities? As he read it, the clause left the law precisely where it was now.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said, that the Solicitor General had told them something about this matter which, to some of them, was no doubt new. He noticed that in several parts of the House the usual allusion to landlord and agent was received with a sort of laughter and sneer which was very cheap and, he might say, rather vulgar. In cases where this presumed right was taken advantage of it had invariably been with the cognisance and approbation of those who represented the public with regard to the road, and because they had conceived it would, on the whole, be beneficial that some re-arrangement of fences should be made, and they had accordingly agreed with the landowner to carry out such improvement. Where land had been taken from the public by private people it had been in cases where the Highway Authorities had neglected their duty, and where squatters had taken for themselves that which they had no right to take. It had, as a general rule, been a question of a poor man trying to make the most out of his opportunity, and he hoped hon. Members would sneer at him in the same way. He was glad to have heard the Solicitor General give the definition he had given, and he thought if the hon. and learned Gentleman would consult those who had a real practical knowledge of rural affairs they would inform him that there were miles and miles of public roads at this moment which would be benefited by there being reserved to some Public Body the right to give and take in such matters as the formation of a new line of fences. If they laid this down as a hard-and-fast rule just as if they were dealing with a road or a street in a town they would be doing harm instead of good, and would be defeating the end in view.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, in answer to the right hon. Member for Bordesley, he doubted very much whether this part of the clause did impose any duty on the District Council which was not already imposed by the Bill; but with reference to the observations from the other side of the House, he was quite certain it did not take away any power any Local Authorities or Highway Authorities might have under the Highway Acts or otherwise to make arrangements that might be beneficial to the public. As to the enclosing of roadside waste, he had had considerable experience on the subject, having been consulted upon it over and over again from all parts of the country. He had found in some cases the agents of large estates had gone all round the estate, and taken in one wholesale dealing every inch of land at the roadside that they possibly could, and other cases in which they went round the estate and took possession of every yard of frontage in an entire parish, not because they thought they were doing wrong, but because they acted under an erroneous impression. It was the duty of the Highway Authorities to look after and protect the highways in their district, and no new duty was being imposed upon them by these words.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, that the Government did not deny that the Amendment would in many cases be of great public convenience. Indeed, no one who lived in the country could doubt this. But they were afraid that it might lead to more land being enclosed. He would suggest that if they added a proviso that the land surrendered should be equal in area to that enclosed they might secure the convenience and avoid the disadvantage.

* THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central

agreed that roadside wastes were of varying width, and said he was very much afraid that landlords and their agents carried out a squaring process for the purpose of cribbing a bit of roadside waste. He had had knowledge of that in his own experience, and be had to fight a case of this very kind. Local Authorities at the present time bad power to deal with those matters, and their duty was to preserve roadside wastes. It was also in the power of any private individual to enforce the law. Therefore, the Amendment would not affect the rights of the public. He thought the only true ground of meeting the case was by imposing this duty on the Local Authorities. The hon. Member for Shropshire was perfectly right when he said that in most of those cases of encroachments the Local Authorities had given their consent, but they had done so under a wrong impression of what the law was. They had no right to give their consent to such an arrangement. It was contrary to their duty, but they had done it in the past on account of their ignorance of the law, and of their duty. By the Common Law they were bound to protect roadside waste. What the Government proposed to do now was to inform them of their duty, and to lay it down in express terms. He thought the Govern- ment were entitled to maintain the clause as it was.

MR. W. LONG

said, he merely rose for the purpose of expressing his sympathy with the President of the Local Government Board at this incursion into debate of one of his colleagues. It had happened four or five times, and the usual result had been to add four or five hours to the discussion. The First Commissioner of Works suddenly appeared on the scene, and he could not take part in this hitherto harmoniously conducted Debate without indulging in a most unworthy sneer. It was not part of their business to discuss what the action of landlords, great or small, had been; but if the First Commissioner of Works had so much time at his disposal, and was so regardless of the passage of the Bill that he wished to initiate a new discussion as to what the conduct of landlords had been, he (Mr. Long) had to say that in regard to those matters they should be perfectly prepared to take up his challenge and discuss the matter with him on the floor of the House; and for his part he was prepared to show that for every landlord the right hon. Gentleman could produce who had done this out of regard for his own advantage and pocket, two or three, or even half-a-dozen, had been solely guided in their action by a desire to fall in with the general wishes of the locality. The Solicitor General had stated that no change would be made in the law affecting Highway Authorities, and in those circumstances he would advise his hon. Friend not to press the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, what alarmed hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House somewhat was the Solicitor General's definition of roadside waste. The hon. and learned Gentleman had defined it to be all that land which extended from the road to the next fence. If that was so the whole of South East Wilts was roadside waste.

SIR J. RIGBY

I declined altogether to define roadside waste.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Did I not understand him to say that it extended from the road to the next fence?

SIR J. RIGBY

No.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, they had no fences in South East Wilts. Fields were divided by a mere line, and a mere line divided them from the road. If the definition he had referred to of a roadside waste was correct, then there were 200,000 or 300,000 acres in South East Wilts which could be turned into roadside waste at once. He was under the impression that the freehold of a roadside waste lay in the landlord; but however that might be, ho must say that if roadside waste was to be so extensively defined as this it rendered these words in the clause very serious indeed.

* MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, in reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for the West Derby Division, he desired to say he made no general attack on landlords. He know there were a great many landlords who thought strongly on this matter.

MR. W. LONG (interrupting)

said, the remark he took objection to was that where the landlords had made this concession it had generally been for his own advantage and for his own object.

* MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

repeated that he made no general attack on the landlords. He knew that a great many landlords felt strongly; and some of the small owners on the side of the roads were just as anxious to enclose roadside waste as were any other class; and what the Government wished lo do was to protect roadside waste for all parties. Upon the subject of the definition of roadside waste, he would like to quote that given by Baron Martin in a well-known case— In the case of an ordinary highway, although it may be of a varying and unequal width, running between fences, one on each side, the right of passage or way, primâ facie, and unless there lie evidence to the contrary, extends to the whole space between the fences, and the public are entitled to the use of the entire of it as highway, and are not confined to the part which may be metalled or kept in repair for the more convenient use of carriages or foot passengers. This showed that roadside wastes might vary in description.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

thought the Committee were indebted to the Solicitor General for his statement. That statement, as he understood it, was that the duty of preventing unlawful encroachments on roadside wastes devolved already on the Highway Authority, that roadside wastes within the fences on cither side of an ordinary road were part of the road, and that any encroachment thereupon was ground for legal proceedings. In the circumstances, he did not think that the Amendment was necessary.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, he took it that "roadside waste" was not a legal expression in any sense, but "waste" was. Primâ facie, these roadside wastes were part of the highway, and so far as these roadside wastes lying between fences were parts of the highway they were protected by the earlier portion of this clause, which gave power to deal with right of way. He suggested that those roadside wastes, which were really and truly waste, and not part of the highway, should be put upon the same footing as commons, and power given to the Council to deal with them, but, it ought not to be imposed upon them as a duty. He suggested that this waste should be included in the Amendment to be proposed by the Solicitor General dealing with Commons.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the whole matter had been discussed at great length, and he must decline to go into it any further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PICTON

moved— In page 15, line 23, after the second "district," to insert the words "and to aid persons in maintaining rights of common where, in the opinion of the Council, the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the inhabitants of the district.

MR. W. LONG

suggested that, in order to avoid excessive expenditure, the approval of the County Council should be required. He moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, after the word "may," to insert "with the approval of the County Council."

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

* MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)

moved— In page in, line 25, after the word "expedient," to insert the words "and after the appointed day they shall be necessary parties to all legal proceedings instituted or defended to prevent such stopping up or obstruction of any right of way or footpath within their district, or such encroachment, and no such proceedings shall be instituted except by the District Council whether as suing alone or with any other District Council or person. It was, he said, most desirable that steps should be taken to protect footpaths and roadside wastes against encroachment. They all knew the extremely unsatisfactory condition of the present law. As a rule it was the duty of everybody to protect a right of way, but the usual result followed that what was everybody's duty was nobody's duty. There was now for the first time a definite body on which was imposed the duty of protecting rights of way. This body could easily put the law in motion, for being conversant with the local circumstances and the surroundings they would be able to judge whether such a right of way did in fact exist, and whether it was for the benefit of the neighbourhood. Under the circumstances, his Amendment proposed that the District Council should be a necessary party when proceedings were instituted. Those Members of the House who had any experience must be aware that the present system was extremely unsatisfactory. Generally one of the parties in a right of way action was a man of straw. Unfortunately the owner of land against whom a right of way was claimed had to fight with his hands tied behind his back, as it were, because if he lost he had to pay the costs of both parties, and if he won there was no prospect of him recovering a single penny. As it would now be the duty of the District Council to protect rights of way, and they would be set in motion either by the Parish Council or by six electors in the parish, there could no longer be any reason for leaving to outside parties the possibility of perpetuating an injustice which was really grave. When a landowner had to fight a man of straw it always meant a most expensive action, involving the hunting up of old records, bringing aged witnesses to the Assize town, and looking after them for two or three days. As it was the duty of the District Councils to undertake the responsibility of guarding rights of way, he submitted that the whole question be left in the hands of the Parish and District Councils without the interference of outsiders. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 25, after the word "expedient," to insert the words "and after the appointed day they shall be necessary parties to all legal proceedings instituted or defended to prevent such stopping up or obstruction of any right of way or footpath within their district, or such encroachment, and no such proceedings shall be instituted except by the District Council whether as suing alone or with any other District Council or person."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the object of the clause was to protect highway rights and footpath rights; but if the Amendment were inserted it would prevent private individuals from moving in a matter of the kind without the consent of the District Council. Not even the Attorney General could move in those circumstances. Immense good had been done in the past by individuals taking up those matters. Again, it would mean an increase in the expenses if the District Council had to be made a party to all such litigation. He thought the hon. Member did not see the effect his Amendment would have if it were accepted. The Government, however, could not accept it.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, there were many parts of the country in which there were Associations for purposes of looking after public rights of this kind. These Societies were supported by subscriptions, and they had been most successful and useful in dealing with case that arose; and he feared the Amendment would prevent the continued operation of such Associations, and in those circumstances he did not think that was at all desirable. He knew of one Association which had done a; great deal of work—which was supported by all classes of the community. He thought it was right that they should have Societies to prevent encroachments on public rights. Such Associations should, indeed, be encouraged rather than otherwise. They would not only take the trouble, but they would save the rates of the district and discharge the work of the District Council. He thought that would not he attained if the Amendment were accepted.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press this Amendment. It struck at the root of the dearest right of the subject—the right to bring an action at law, and therein to employ the Attorney or Solicitor General, and they could not part with this right without a struggle.

* MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

said, he would like, in reply, to say that he was fully aware of the existence of the Associations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings). He did not for a moment deny that their work was a most useful one, and he would not propose to interfere with it. The observations of the Solicitor General seemed to him to prove that the clause as a whole was unnecessary, and he could not agree with him in that respect. He would ask leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)

said, he had to move— In page 15, line 26, to leave out the words "or any six parochial electors They had representation of the parish in the Parish Councils, and now it was proposed that this should he over-ridden by six electors instead of their having a uniform, simple process, and allowing the body appointed to be trusted. These six electors were to go behind the Parish Council if they did not agree with the decision of that body, and they were to say that the decision was wrong, and, instead of performing the ordinary electoral duty of not electing them again, when they thought these gentlemen had not done what they ought to do, then six electors were to be endowed with all the responsibility of the Council, and to put other bodies in motion. The Parish Council had first to consider the question, and then, they having done their duty, should be amazed by the interference of the District Council with their prerogatives. And all that was to take place because six electors thought they should disagree with the Parish Councils. They were endowed, however, with even a greater power than that. Supposing a District Council told them their ideas were wrong, that they had formed a foolish opinion, the six electors could go over the heads of the District Council—they could go to the County Council, and the result would be to bring the different authorities into conflict. They could compel the District Council to hold an inquiry, and, if the District Council found that these six electors were not right, then they could move the County Council to deal with the particular matter—and all this against the wish of the majority of a parish! It was, as it seemed to him, a very strange proposal. He did not think there was any precedent for it. In relation to the School Boards, for instance, he never heard of the electors having power to sot aside a Board's authority, or to alter the deciding authority, except, through the ordinary channel—the election of a new School Board. The proposal struck at the root of the representative principle. By representation they meant that the person elected to represent should speak on behalf of those who elected him. The electors had a right to turn out those who misrepresented them. They had never heard of electors, in the case of a Member of Parliament who did not act in accordance with the wishes of his constituents, coining forward and appealing to a higher authority to remove them from their representative sphere. Therefore, he did hope that this remarkable and unprecedented proposal would be removed from the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 26, to leave out the words "or any six parochial electors."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

MR. HANBURY

said, his hon. Friend might have gone further than he did. The conflict might be greater than he thought. It was evident to him (Mr. Hanbury) that the six electors might not belong to a particular parish; they might be six belonging to the district, and these six would have the power to call upon the District Council to go behind the decision of a particular Parish Council. He would like also to point, to a further vagueness in the, wording. So far as he read the words, the six electors might not only be electors outside the parish, but six outside the district. The wording was very vague, indeed. He would like to know, was it the intention that such electors as he had mentioned should put these powers in force?

SIR J. RIGBY

was understood to say that the words of the clause appeared to be clear. As to the main question, that this proposal was unprecedented, he did not agree that it was so. Similar powers had been exercised in a similar way under the Allotments Act and other Acts, the electors putting in motion certain bodies—not over-ruling them, as had been said by the Mover of the Amendment would be the result here. He agreed, however, that it would be unwise to bring any of the bodies into conflict in this respect, and while he thought the clause, as it stood, was reasonable and safe, he was willing to hear the views of hon. Members upon the Amendment, and to consider those views. Their desire was that the Parish Council should not be over-ruled in any unreasonable way.

SIR W. HART-DYKE (Kent, Dartford)

said, if there was any doubt on the point as to whether those words should be removed, he thought the Solicitor General's observations would satisfy that doubt. The words were so vague that they might lead to all kinds of difficulties. According to the Solicitor General, it would be in the power of busybodies to interfere in each locality. The clause as it stood would have a serious effect on the operation of the Bill when it became law. Surely it was enough that those who represented the localities should have notice given them of any grievance that was likely to arise. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not told them whether these six electors were to go to the Parish or the District Council. If he had told them that, he might have given a reason for the retention of the words. But, so far as he could see, these six electors were to interfere with each locality and cause disturbance, which was very inadvisable. The drafting of the clause was so very obscure that they had some right to implore the Government to remove these words and leave the particular matter in the hands of the Parish Council or the parish meeting, as the case might be.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, in certain districts there would be no Parish Council, and this representation could not then be made except by electors. As to busybodies, he thought they were sometimes very useful indeed, and he did not think the Solicitor General would be justified in leaving them altogether out of consideration.

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

said, he did not see why they should insert the sub-section at all. Anybody might move the Attorney General to take action in his own name. If any person wished to more as a private individual he could do so without the second sub-section at all; he had merely to memorialise under the first sub-section. The second sub-section placed the District Council in an unfair position, because it would override them in the exercise of their discretion. They constituted the District Council, and gave that Council certain duties to perform, and, having done so, why could they not trust the Council to perform those duties properly? He could not see any reason for the introduction of this sub-section—at any rate, for the retention of the words mentioned in the Amendment. If the Government desired to replace the District Council by the County Council, they should strike out the District Council and bring in different words. The clause was absurd as it stood.

Colonel KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said, they could not ascertain from the clause where their six electors were to belong to—whether they were to be parochial electors of one parish or of several. The Solicitor General said the meaning was clear; he understood him to convey that they might be drawn from any parishes throughout the district. He would suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman a case that might arise upon his reading of the clause. Take a district of six or seven parishes, each parish having a properly elected Parish Council; any question of right of way must affect and concern these six or seven parishes represented in their own Councils; these particular parishes could not agree that there was any reason for action on their part, and then the six electors drawn from different parishes interfered after the Councils had declared that it would be harmful and detrimental to public interests to interfere. Any individual in each of the parishes could act, and six could insist upon action being taken. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; according to the clause they could do so. The hon. and learned Gentleman said they could: that the six might be drawn from different parishes constituting the district and they could act, notwithstanding the decision of the Council of a parish, and insist upon action being taken. [Cries of "No!"] Well, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish that, but he conveyed it to the Committee. They were anxious that the Councils should play their proper part in these matters, and he hoped they would go to a Division. If they did, he would support the Amendment.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, for once he was afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken had not read the clause they were discussing, he suggested that the Council would be compelled to take action—the District-Council. That was not so. They would be compelled to consider the matter. That was all. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) said the District Council should be loft to do its own duty. That, however, was not the plan of the Dill, and he (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) had supported other clauses in which a course differing from that which he now suggested had been pursued. In the case of the sanitary clauses, for instance, it was provided that, if the District Council did not do its duty, the County Council had power to override it in certain respects. Ho (Mr. Storey) did not attach importance to the words now proposed to be left out. There was no reason why the Parish Council should not be left to take the initiative. He would suggest to the Solicitor General that the omission of these words would make no difference at all. The Parish Council might well be left to do that which it had been sent to do: and it would save time if the Amendment were agreed to.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he had, he thought, stated that if it was the feeling of the Committee that the withdrawal of the words would not be regretted, he would be willing to consider the advisability of striking them out of the clause. If the Committee felt that the Amendment should be accepted, he would accept it on behalf of the Government.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. HANBURY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In line 27, before the words; "District Council," leave out "a" and insert; "the.

On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In line 28, to leave out the words "beneficial to the inhabitants of the," and insert the words "or adjoining district of the same county.

On Motion of Sir F. S. POWELL, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 15, line 29, to leave out the words "or is likely to be.

On Motion of Mr. COURTNEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 15, line 30, to leave out the words "or is likely to take place.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, the words of the sub-section ran— Unless satisfied that the allegations of such representation are incorrect, and he would move to insert the word "if" in place of "unless," so that the burden of proof should rest on the plaintiff. If this were agreed to a further consequential Amendment would be necessary.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that if the Committee were to discuss Amendments of this nature it would be impossible to get through the clause in anything like reasonable time. So far as the hon. Baronet's proposal was concerned, there would be no distinction such as that he wished to draw. The District would have a duty to perform, and if the necessary proof were given action ought to be taken. If they were satisfied they would take proceedings, and the distinction would really be one without a difference.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, there was this to be considered—it was customary to give evidence of a man's guilt before they called upon him to prove his innocence.

SIR. J. RIGBY

said, the case of a, man put upon his trial was in no way similar to the case dealt with in the Amendment. If the District Council were satisfied they were satisfied; if they were not satisfied they were not satisfied.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, he would not persist with the Amendment. The question was one for the Government, not for him.

Mr. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he wished to move, in line 33, to leave out the word "proper." He did not suppose; the District Councils would do anything improper, but he desired to know what it was those bodies would have to do which should render the insertion of the word "proper" necessary?

Amendment proposed, in line 33, to leave out the word "proper."—(Mr. Stanley Leighton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I would make an appeal to the Committee on this clause. We have spent an enormous amount of time over the clause, and we are now entering upon a most academical discussion as to the meaning of certain words. The hon. Gentleman objects to the words "proper proceedings." Does he mean that the District Councils are to take improper proceedings? It will be absolutely impossible to get the Bill through, not only within reasonable time, but within an unreasonable period of time, if the clauses are to be discussed at this enormous length, and if these verbal criticisms, involving no question of principle, are to be moved and debated in this manner. The Government will adhere to the words of the clause, to which the hon. Gentleman does not propose an alternative.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

I propose to leave the word "proper" out.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We cannot accept that.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he must protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The business of the Committee was to see that the wording of the clauses was correct. They had disposed of the question of principle on the Second Reading, and now they were dealing with the words. The Bill was drawn in such a way as to render it necessary to amend large portions of almost every clause. Besides, the right hon. Gentleman himself had put down 50 or 60 verbal Amendments. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman to tell him what a certain word in the section meant, and instead of complying the right hon. Gentleman read him a lecture. Why should the Government introduce surplusage into the measure?

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he was not at all surprised at the Amendment of his hon. Friend, but at the same time he would advise him to withdraw it. Though be agreed that the drafting of the Bill was very defective, he thought it would be better to leave the matter now to the Government, as they were responsible. He bad never seen such a piece of faulty drafting, but the point raised by the bon. Member was hardly worth discussing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he would propose that in line 38, after the words "District Council," they should insert "shall be ordered to perform its duty." If that Amendment were adopted, he should propose to insert, as a further addition— and in default of such performance shall be indicted by the County Council. The object of the Amendments would be to enforce the performance of the duties which the section imposed on the District Councils. As the clause stood, if the District Council did not perform its duty representation would be made to the County Council, and the County Council would not enforce the performance of the duty on the minor body, but would undertake the performance of it itself. That seemed to him an improper method of dealing with the matter. In this way, be submitted, they would be holding out a direct encouragement to the District Council to fail in the performance of its duty, for they would be telling them that if they did fail the duty would be discharged by somebody else.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 38, after the word "Council," to insert the words "shall be ordered to perform its duty."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

THE CHAIRMAN

This does not read.

MR. COURTNEY

It does not make sense.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 39, at end, to add—"Any proceedings or steps taken by a District Council or County Council in relation to any alleged right of way or public footpath shall not be invalid by reason only by such right of way not being found to exist, or of the footpath not being found to be a public footpath."—(Sir J. Rigby.)

MR. JEFFREYS

said, he wished to move to add at the beginning of the Amendment the words "The costs of." He moved this because, as the proposal at present stood, he failed to understand what it meant. He could understand an Amendment declaring that in proceedings taken under the circumstances mentioned costs should not be disallowed.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the hon. Member had rightly imagined that it was intended in this Amendment to deal with the question of costs. Probably the word "invalid" was not the best word that could be used. He would suggest that the words "be deemed to be unauthorised" should be inserted in place of the words "be invalid."

SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he did not think that Amendment would improve the matter at all in regard to a defendant against whom proceedings bad been wrongfully taken. Would the Solicitor General explain the case?

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

said, the hon. Member for Islington had had great experience in these matters, and he thought some reply should be vouchsafed to him.

MR. BARTLEY

Are we to have no answer?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the hon. Member must be aware that when the Government were silent on a point of this kind their meaning was that they did not agree with what had been said. It was the object of the Government to save time.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, his contention was that the Amendment at present was meaningless, and therefore ought not to be inserted in an Act of Parliament. If a right of way was not found the proceedings were not to be deemed invalid. That might affect the question of costs being allowed from the public funds, and so wasted over long and fruitless proceedings, but it might also affect the question of costs against a successful defendant. It would he monstrous to suppose that although proceedings were improper the defendant should in all cases be responsible for costs.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to:— To leave out the word "invalid." and insert the words "deemed to be unauthorised.

Other Amendments agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he would move to insert at the end of the clause the words— Provided that nothing in this section shall affect roadside wastes at the side of main roads vested in and under the management and control of a County Council, or the powers of the County Council in relation thereto. The object of this proposal was to prevent unnecessary overlapping of powers. Under Section 11 of the Act of 1888 similar powers were given to the County Council in regard to the taking of roadside wastes on main roads. The question was whether two different authorities were to have the same power in respect to the same wastes. That would not be a good thing, therefore his Amendment would except from the section roads under the management of the County Council. It would not exempt those roads now being managed by the District Authority under contract. The effect would be that wherever the District Council had any duty to do in connection with the roads there it should have duty with regard to roadside wastes, but that where it had no duty in connection with the roads under arrangement with the Road Authority, there it should have no duty with respect to roadside wastes. That seemed to him a logical and practical arrangement.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 39, at end, to add "Provided that nothing in this section shall affect roadside wastes at the side of main roads vested in and under the management and control of a County Council, or the powers of the County Council in relation thereto."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment as it stood. There was a minor objection that the words "vested in" would appear to refer to main roads. Another objection was that according to his recollection of the law there was no such tiling as a roadside waste vested in a County Council. County Councils in this respect were not in the same position as Highway Authorities in towns in whom the streets were vested. The County Councils only had the control and management of the roads. The object of the Amendment of the hon. Member would be met if he said in it— Nothing in this section shall affect roadside wastes which are under the management and control of County Councils.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, ho had no objection to the alteration proposed by the hon. and learned Member. He thought, however, that under Clause 11 of the Local Government Act of 1888 main roads were expressly vested in County Councils.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "at the side of main roads vested in and," agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

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

MR. BARTLEY

said, bethought that attention should be called to the way in which this clause had been drafted. It consisted of only 23 lines, but—

THE CHAIRMAN

This is not in Order. The Rule with regard to the Question before the Committee is that the clause must be taken as it is. The Question is, "That the Clause, sis amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. BARTLEY

Am I in Order in referring to the clause itself? I desire to point out the great changes that have been made in the provision since it has been going through Committee. I think I shall be in Order in doing that—to show how much alteration has been necessary to make the clause read.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is clearly not in Order. The Committee must take the clause as amended, and discuss it as it stands.

MR. BARTLEY

Of course, if I cannot discuss the clause I cannot.

MR. HANBURY

said, that as regarded the last words of the clause, they appeared to him to require alteration, but he had hesitated to propose verbal Amendments after what had been said by right hon. Gentlemen on the two Front Benches. He might, however, be allowed to draw attention to the great difference there was between this clause and a similar clause in the earlier portion of the Bill—namely, Clause 15. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure would read the last few lines which did not contain the qualifying words of Clause 15, he would find that there was nothing to limit in time or extent the powers which the County Council could take over from the District Council. The powers were absolute. The clause said— And if that Council so resolve the powers and duties of the District Council under this section shall be transferred to the County Council. There was here no limit as to time, and no reference to any particular matter. In Clause 15 the qualifying words "for the purpose of the matter" were contained, he had desired to move an Amendment, but after what had been said by his Leader he could hardly venture to do so.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he had offered advice to hon. Gentlemen relying upon the President of the Local Government Board taking the course which he was sure he would take of having the clause carefully considered by the draftsmen.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the clause did not stand as originally drafted, for the reason that the Government had accepted alterations to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen in various parts of the House. He thought it likely that in its present shape the clause would require careful perusal. He would see that that perusal was given to it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

Clause 26 (Transfer of certain powers of Justices to District Council).

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he wished to move— To leave out the words "out of Session," in order to insert the words "otherwise than as a Court of Quarter Sessions. He thought that if the clause retained its present form very few of the powers would be exercised by the District Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 15, line 41, to leave out the words "out of Session," and insert the words "otherwise than as a Court of Quarter Sessions."—(Sir A. Rollit.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he hoped the hon. Member for West Derby would not be angry with him if he referred to the Act of 1888, but as a matter of fact the clause followed the phraseology of the Act of 1888, and therefore he could not accept the alteration proposed.

Sir A. ROLLIT

said, he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE (Sussex, Horsham)

said, he would move to leave out Sub-section (c), on the ground that a line should be drawn between intrusting judicial or quasi-judicial and non-judicial powers to an Elected Body. The sub-section would confer judicial powers on a new body which would be entirely without experience in the matter.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (c).—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

We regard the licensing of dealers in game as a purely administrative function, and in no way a judicial function. Those powers have been included in the provision respecting transfers of powers to District Councils, and I certainly shall not admit such a slight as is implied by the hon. Member's Amendment to be cast upon them. The intention of this Bill is that those administrative duties which belong to Quarter Sessions, but are in no way of a judicial character, should be transferred to the District Councils, as they were by the Bill of 1888.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, that no slight was intended to be cast upon the District Council, but it was contended that the licensing of dealers in game was a semi-judicial function. It seemed rather strange at this time of day, when there appeared to be great anxiety to obtain the position of Justice of the Peace, that the work of Justices of the Peace should be diminished in this manner.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

said, he had uttered no words which could be construed into a slight upon the District Council. He had simply laid it down as a matter of principle that there should be a clear distinction between judicial and administrative functions.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

moved to omit Sub-section (e.). He said that the hearing of appeals from the police as to certificates for pedlars was hardly a class of work which could be done by a District Council, which would not necessarily sit in an open Court and could not exercise any powers of summary jurisdiction.

Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 4, to leave out Sub-section (e).—[Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I can only make the same reply as on the last occasion. We regard this as an administrative duty which can be properly transferred to the District Council.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 16, line 7, after the word "petroleum," to insert the word "and.

Mr. H. H. FOWLER

proposed in the same line to leave out "and dogs."

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 7, to leave out the words "and dogs."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

wished to know why his friends the dogs were not to be transferred to the District Councils. Why were dogs to be deprived of that great advantage?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Board of Agriculture, in which Department this important question is, are of opinion that there should be separate legislation on this question. I think a Bill on the subject has been already prepared by them, and therefore they do not wish any alteration to take place in the law at present.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HANBURY

asked why the precedent of the Bill of 1888 had not been followed with regard to granting certificates to hawkers?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would look into the question.

MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE

moved— To insert after "district" the words "provided that the powers and duties hereby trans- ferred shall be exercised by the District Council in open Court in all cases in which they are so exercised or are exercisable on the appointed day. He said, it had always been a question with Boards of Guardians and Sanitary Authorities whether reporters should be admitted to their meetings. It was only reasonable to ask that powers which, in his opinion, were, to a certain extent, judicial should be exercised in public.

Amendment proposed, In page 16, line 13, after the word "district," to insert the words "provided that the powers and duties hereby transferred shall be exercised by the District Council in open Court in all eases in which they are so exercised or are exercisable on the appointed day."—(Mr. Heywood Johnstone.)

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

* Mr. H. H. FOWLER

The answer to this Amendment is again that which I have already given. This is not a judicial proceeding. The duties are administrative, and the Local Authority will not sit in an open Court or in any other Court, but will sit as the present Sanitary Authority does. Both Urban and Rural Authorities grant licences for hackney carriages and for other things, and it has never been thought necessary to make provision that they should sit in public. In 1888, when the very important duty of licensing theatres and music halls, and so on, was transferred to the County Councils there was no provision made that they should sit in public. I believe the Solicitor General advised that that duty was not judicial, but administrative, and I think it was decided by the Queen's Bench Division that the London County Council, when adjudicating on such matters, was sitting not in a judicial, but in an administrative capacity. I say again that I have faith in these Councils. These are all bodies, it must be remembered, that already exist, and are not new bodies about to be created. The authorities have sat for a long series of years, and no complaint has been made of the manner in which they have performed their duties. I think, therefore, there is no necessity, and that there would be no propriety in fencing them round with rules of this sort. Under these circumstances I cannot accept the Amendment.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the ancient system in England was to perform all public business of this kind in public,—originally under an oak. When, therefore, Parliament was, as the right hon. Gentleman would say, restoring to the people of the country their ancient rights and liberties, it was appropriate that the duties of the Elected Bodies should be performed in the open day. A pawnbroker might be absolutely destroyed if his certificate were refused, as a pedlar might be if his licence were refused. Surely these persons had a light to require that if they were to perish they should perish in the light of day. He could not conceive what objection there was to the Amendment. If the Councils were going to carry out their business in a way which would command the approbation of the whole district the more open the Court was the better. He could not see why they should have the power with closed doors to take away the lives and property of their fellow subjects. [Ministerial laughter.] Yes, the lives—for "you take my life when you do take the means whereby I live."

MR. GODSON (Kidderminster)

remarked that as there was an appeal against a refusal to grant a certificate to a pedlar, the granting of a certificate must be a judicial function.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

asked whether an appeal would be from the District Councils to the Quarter Sessions in the case of a refusal of a licence?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Whatever the powers, duties, and liabilities of the Justices in these matters, they will be transferred. I cannot say whether there is an appeal or not.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

thought the Amendment perfectly reasonable. As the District Council might over-ride the police in the matter of a pedlar's certificate, it was reasonable that it should not be done with closed doors.

Mr. H. H. FOWLER

I would ask the hon. Member whether it is reasonable to suppose that these Public Bodies were suddenly going to develop criminal instincts. These are existing bodies—Sanitary Authorities and Town Councils—and they have hitherto acted like sane Englishmen. I have never known before that they sat in camera to perform such duties, and I would be no party to casting such a slight upon them as to insert this provision. I must ask the Committee if necessary to divide on the question, in order that we may have the matter distinctly decided.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 409.)

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

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he wished to know what amount of fees were to be transferred from the old to the new authorities, and whether the effect of the clause would not be to throw an additional rate upon the whole county? He believed that the fees now went to the police rate. He would also like to ask how the fees would be applied by the District Council; would they go to the credit of particular parishes, or how would they be dealt with? Further, he would be glad to be informed of the amount of the fees, and to whom they were now paid.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The fees payable, except those for work rendered, are transferred by another section to the District Council, and machinery will be provided for granting licences. Unless I know what is the number of licences and the fees, I cannot give the hon. Member the information ho asks for, but I may say I do not apprehend there will be any necessity for additional taxation.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

inquired whether, in the case of the refusal of a licence, there would, as at present, be an appeal to the Quarter Sessions?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There will still be the right of appeal wherever it now exists. The clause only provides for the transfer of certain duties from one body to another body.

Mr. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

asked what was to be done in regard to the fees payable to Magistrates' clerks?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have no doubt that those gentlemen will take care of themselves.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

Then, will not the Bill take any care of them?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Certainly, there are provisions in the Bill doing that.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he was one of those who did not like the clause as a whole, because, in his opinion, many of the duties which it transferred to the District Councils ought to be discharged by a Central Body like the Justices rather than by a Local Body such as the District Council. [An hon. Member: Divide!] They certainly would divide.

MR. CONYBEARE

What about the compromise?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, the only consolation he had was derived from the insertion in the clause of the words "out of session." He believed most of the duties were discharged by the Justices in session, and, therefore, there would be very little left for the District Council to do.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I must protest against the practice which is being pursued of raising fresh points on the Question that each clause as amended stand part of the Bill. I should like to refresh the memory of the hon. Gentleman, and to point out to him as an old Member of the House that the Bill of 1888 was not dealt with as this Bill is being dealt with; and its machinery clauses were not subjected to exhaustive discussion renewed on the Question that a clause stand part, of the Bill. If this is to be the attitude of the Opposition with regard to the rest of this Bill, certain conditions will have to be reconsidered.

MR. BARTLEY

I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking to the clause? I was stopped on the ground that I was not doing so.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman, as Minister in charge of the Bill, is making an appeal to the Committee.

MR. W. LONG

said, he was bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the best plan to get the Bill through and to expedite its progress was not by chiding the Opposition but by getting his own friends to behave as he wished the Opposition to behave. He did not want to take advantages which the right hon. Gentleman had given by his perfectly unnecessary allusion to the proceedings on another Bill. No comparison could be made between this Bill and the Bill of 1888, because the progress of that Bill was assisted by important concessions, such as were invariably made on all first-class Bills, but which certainly had not been made in this case. If the right hon. Gentleman could have a little patience—no doubt it was very disagreeable to listen to unnecessary objections, he hoped hon. Members behind him would not think it necessary to raise them again when they came to the end of a clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

Clause 27 (Expenses of Urban District Council).

Amendments proposed, In page 16, line 17, to leave out the words "the Council of." Line 18, after the word "district," to insert the word "Council."—(Sir A. Rollit.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The phrases used are the same throughout the Bill. I do not think it would be wise to make this alteration.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Clause 28 (Expenses of Rural District Council.)

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he had to move the omission of Sub-section (b). The Local Government Board proposed to take an entirely new power, the exercise of which would have a serious effect on agricultural property. The clause proposed to amend the incidence of taxation. Under the Public Health Act (Section 230) agricultural land was exempted from three-fourths of a special rate, unless it was under Id. in the £1 or the expenditure was less than £10, in which case the Overseers were empowered to raise it out of the poor rate. He need hardly remind the Committee that at the present moment agriculture was not in such a flourishing condition as to justify any new burden being placed upon it, and he was somewhat surprised not only that the right hon. Gentleman had sternly refused to give a fresh exemption for agricultural land when imposing new rates, but that he had even gone the length of giving his own Board new powers for removing existing exemptions. Of course he did not know to what extent the right hon. Gentleman meant those powers to be exercised, but if the sub-section passed as it stood it might under his guidance or under the guidance of future Presidents he possible to exercise not a dispensing but rather a burdening and taxing power to a very considerable extent indeed. There might be something to be said in favour of giving powers in the direction both of exempting and taxing, but the right hon. Gentleman had declined to give any power of exemption, although he asked for them in the direction of further taxation. All who represented agricultural districts were bound to protest against any extension of those powers. It was not a question of a small amount: in many eases a. very heavy burden might be involved. Seeing that, in urban districts they had allowed the exemption in case of sanitary expenses, it was really hard that agricultural land was to lose the exemption in rural districts where the expenditure had practically the same object, and was largely under like circumstances. Why should agricultural land be taxed up to the hilt for sanitary improvements in towns which happened to be included in rural districts? He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought lo attempt to justify this proposal, that he should tell them to what extent the power was to be used, and that he should defend, if he could, the policy of further burdening agricultural land in these days of agricultural depression.

Amendment proposed, In page 16. line 30, to leave out Sub-section (b).—(MR. H. Hobhouse.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

May I point out that this proposal, instead of having the effect which the hon. Member seems to anticipate, will not in any way interfere with existing legislation? Under the Act of 1875 the exemption mentioned applies only to sanitary expenses. I have put down an Amendment to make that perfectly clear. I admit that the sub-section as it stands is open to criticism as being too wide, and I am quite willing to introduce words to limit it to "expenses incurred under this Act." I have on the Paper an Amendment to insert, after "contributory place," the words and such expenses would, if not separately chargeable on a contributory place, be raised as general expenses. Those Amendments will obviate the objections to the clause. My object is to confine it to expenses under this Act, and they would not form any considerable amount.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, the explanation was satisfactory so far as it went, and the sub-section, as amended, would not be unfair. But he wished it to be borne in mind that hon. Members on his side of the House protested against the principle which was involved of making all charges assessed equally on the Poor Law system.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

If my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion for the omission of the sub-section I will move the Amendments.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

Does the right hon. Gentleman think his words will limit the operation of the sub-section to expenses which are for the benefit of the district as a whole?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think the words I have proposed to move will make my intention clear.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 16. line 30, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "under this Act."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

MR. W. LONG

said, there was no doubt that in country districts the belief prevailed that the dual method of raising those expenses afforded the ratepayers relief. But as the right hon. Gentleman had fairly said that this change only affected a very few instances, and as it was clearly understood that in the larger part of the expenditure no change would be made, he thought the Amendment might very well be accepted by the Committee.

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

asked whether any additional expense would be thrown on the parish by this arrangement?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the expenses would be precisely the same, and no extra burden would be thrown on the parishes.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 16, line 32, after the word "place." to insert the words "and such expenses would, if not separately chargeable on a contributory place, be raised as general expenses.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 (Special provisions as to London and county boroughs).

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, that on this clause he had to move the omission of Sub-section 1, and he would shortly state his reasons for doing so. As he understood the subsection, it had reference to the election and meeting of Boards of Guardians, and that the administrative County of London, and every county borough, should be treated as if they were rural districts. They understood that urban districts were excluded.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, they were included in the second part of the Bill.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who objected to urban Guardians being excluded.

SIR C. W. DILKE

Excluded from Part I., but this is Part II.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the right hon. Gentleman wanted the Bill to apply to the whole country. At any rate, he thought the general impression about the Bill was that it was a Bill for the better regulation of the rural districts of the country, and it was understood that the Bill should be treated as applying almost entirely, if not wholly, to the rural districts. This clause extended to London and every county borough—[Cries of "No!"] That was obvious; if it were not so, it would not be necessary to have this clause at all. The right hon. Gentleman by introducing this clause showed that without it the proposed legislation as to Boards of Guardians would not apply to London and urban districts; therefore, by this clause the right hon. Gentleman proposed to revolutionise, or greatly alter, the proceedings in the election of Boards of Guardians all over England. He ventured to say that was a very strong proceeding. On former parts of the Bill—he was not going into details—they had had sufficient controversy over the question of including in the Bill the question of Poor Law at all, and some of them had held—he hoped not in an undue manner—that the question of the Poor Law was one that might have been dealt with in a separate measure, and not introduced into a Parish Councils Bill. If that objection held good with regard to the country generally, it was of much greater force as regarded London. The Poor Law generally was a difficult question certainly, but the treatment of it in London was exceptionally delicate. In London they had vast populations, enormous questions pressing on them with regard to the administration of Poor Law relief, and they had the ever pressing question of the unemployed, which was directly connected with the administration of the Poor Law in London; therefore, he said the question was one of extreme delicacy, and one he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, as President of the Department that had to do with the administration of the Poor Law, would have been glad to have left out of his Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had thought differently, and therefore they had to deal with it as they found it. It was in order to challenge the opinion of the Committee on this important question that he and an hon. Friend near him brought forward the Motion to omit this sub-section, and he observed also that an hon. Gentleman not now in his place, the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), had taken the same view of the question, so far as the Notice Paper was concerned. He merely mentioned this in passing to show that it ought not to be looked upon as any Party question at all. He regretted very much that these discussions upon matters of administration—to use the phrase of the right hon. Gentleman—affecting the social life of London and the whole country, had been treated—he hoped not by them specially—in some parts of the House as Party questions. It was to be deplored that any Party spirit should have entered into questions of this kind. Some days ago he called attention to the question of nominated Guardians, and he thought he was right in referring to it again here, because if it was not for this sub-section that ho moved to omit, the provision of this part of the Bill would not apply to the nominated Guardians for London. The right hon. Gentleman told them that nominated Guardians were only appointed in London; and he ventured to think that, instead of removing them from London, it would be better to increase them by extending the principle throughout the country. But that was a discretion the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to adopt. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him to this extent: that his Department possessed special powers regarding the administration of the Poor Law in London, but what did he propose to do by this sub-section? He proposed to sweep away all the powers which the Local Government Board now possessed with regard to nominated Guardians in London, to remove all the ex officio Guardians from London, and to place the administration of the Poor Law in London in the hands, henceforth, of the elected Guardians. [Cheers.] He knew that was a popular doctrine with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; therefore, he was not surprised at the cheers; but those cheers did not convince him the doctrine was just or fair. They were so altering the Poor Law that its administration would now he in the hands of elected Guardians, elected on a purely democratic principle. That might he a very fine doctrine for Radicals, but it, was not the doctrine that commended itself, he ventured to say, to anyone conversant with Poor Law administration, he believed, if the common sense and good judgment of the Committee could he taken, short of a Party Division—if the right hon. Gentleman would say he would not ask the Government Tellers to tell on a question of this kind; if it could be discussed even like a discussion in a Poor Law Conference, the right hon. Gentleman would find that I heir arguments prevailed over those the right hon. Gentleman hail unfortunately taken up. At present the administration of the Poor Law of London was more satisfactory than it would be under (his proposed alteration, and he said it was a very heavy responsibility that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had taken on themselves in altering the administration of the Poor Law in this great Metropolis, lie saw some hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented the East End of London, and he was quite sure, whether hon. Members sat on one side or the other, they would agree with him to this extent: that the condition of the poor in the East End of Loudon was one that might create misgivings, searchings of heart of all classes, and that he was a rash man who altered the conditions under which relief was administered so as to lead to the belief that by excessive administration of relief the poor were going to obtain that which, under the present conditions of the labour market, they were unable to obtain. By such a thing a serious blow would be struck at the thrift and industry of a large mass of the population of this great City. And, moreover, he feared that upon such a condition of things as that there would ensue a dangerous attraction to this Metropolis which, in the long run, would cause mischief to those classes whom hon. Gentlemen represented in the East of London and whose condition they desired to ameliorate in every possible way, because they would find if the Poor Law was to be administered in a lax way, as it would under the altered conditions of the Pill, the result would be that the attraction to London, which was too great at this moment, would be excessively aggravated, and the struggle for existence in London would be greater than ever. That was one of the dangers they had to look forward to under this change. He knew he preached these dangers to unwilling and, he supposed, to deaf ears, and he did not suppose that right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought he knew anything about it. Though not an authority, he had taken part, in the administration of the relief of the poor in the West End of London, and he know something about the conditions in which the poor lived in London. He ventured to say, with all the authority he might possess in this respect, this was a matter of exceeding delicacy, and should be approached in a calm and philanthropic spirit. Though he knew he had no chance of succeeding in carrying his Amendment, he hoped the discussion it might produce would show to the Committee there were some men who had the courage, of their convictions, and did not mind saving they looked on the alteration of the administration of the Poor Law in London as a very dangerous thing, and regretted that the Government had thought it necessary lo bring into a Parish Councils Pill this delicate and difficult question, and ho earnestly protested against what he believed was an unnecessary restriction. He, therefore, moved the Amendment standing in his mime.

Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (1) stand part of the Clause."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Member talks about this Bill as if it were originally intended simply to deal with local government in the parishes, and with Parish Councils only. He indicated that this clause was included now, apparently, for the first time, and that had it, not been for the insertion of this clause this Bill would not have extended to London and the administrative counties. This clause has been in the Bill from the day it was introduced to the House, and it was in it when it was read a second time. My right hon. Friend behind me objected to its being called a Parish Councils Bill, and I have never called it by that name, as I think it is misleading, because this is a Bill for the completion of the local government of this Kingdom. We have established County Councils, and we now propose to complete the local government by Parish Councils in parishes and District Councils in the sanitary districts, and the extension of these powers to urban districts is as much a part of this Bill as the creation of the new Parish Councils. What is the proposition the hon. Gentleman makes? He proposes now, after we have had the Poor Law question discussed on seven days in this House, and during a Debate in which 257 speeches have been delivered, when the whole question of the Poor Law has been raised, the whole arguments on both sides have been threshed out, when the London case has been dealt with over and over again, when some of the most powerful of the speeches made were made in respect of London, when the whole question of nominated Guardians was raised, discussed and decided—because when the Committee voted on nominated Guardians it was in regard to Loudon and nowhere else, and we had that admirable speech from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in defence of London—after all that, after the seven days, discussion, after the Committee have pronounced an opinion on this question—with the full knowledge of the hon. Member that a settlement has been arrived at with reference to this Poor Law question which has been regarded as acceptable—[Cries of"No, no!"] Hon. Members may shake their heads and say "no, no." They are entitled to their opinions; but at all events, certain distinguished Members of the Conservative Party have arranged a certain solution of this question which has been regarded as amply satisfactory by certain Leaders of the Conservative Party and certain Leaders of the Liberal Party, and now at this time and on this day, the 29th day of these Debates in Committee, the hon. Member thinks it right—I use no stronger word—to reopen the whole of this question again. I positively decline again to discuss a question the House has already discussed and settled after the fullest and freest discussion. I have been told by the hon. Member many times before, and by many other Members, that the Government have undertaken a solemn and heavy responsibility in the course they have taken. I can only say that responsibility we fully and entirely accept, and we can conceive of nothing more inconsistent, nothing more indispensable than to form a different system of Poor Law for Loudon from that which exists elsewhere; therefore, the Amendment meets with the most uncompromising opposition from us. So far as this side of the House is concerned, I hope there will be no further debate.

MR. WHITMORE (Chelsea)

thought it right that a, London Member should support the hon. Member for the Oxford University (Mr. Talbot) in the Amendment he had moved, and he did not think that the President of the Local Government Board was right or fair in saying the question of the changes made by this Bill in the administration of the Poor Law in Loudon was exhaustively discussed.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I said they were fully discussed.

* MR. WHITMORE

As regards the country generally, but beyond that there were exceptional circumstances connected with London which it was necessary for a London Member to say a few words upon. The clause for the first time proposed specially to extend the operation of the Poor Law clauses to London, and he thought, therefore, they were bound, even at some length, to express their views on the question, and he was only sorry the right hon. Gentleman had invited his supporters to say nothing. That might not be surprising; but if the right hon. Gentleman's followers were content to sit with closed mouths, he thought they would not resent a Conservative Member saying briefly why he objected to this extension of the Poor Law part of the Bill to London. For his part, he did so mainly for two reasons. He believed himself that in London there was a much greater difficulty in getting a voter to the poll in local elections than there was in any other district throughout the country. He regretted it, but it was the fact. The future administration of the Poor Law was to be given to bodies which were popularly elected, and which contained among their members neither ex officio nor nominated Guardians. Was not that, to all intents and purpose, the Vestry of the present moment? There was also this distinction in favour of the Vestries—they were elected on all sorts of grounds, and there was some hope that men would be elected on account of their general competency, whereas, in the future Poor Law administration, the Boards of Guardians would be elected simply on the Poor Law question. He was astonished some short time ago to hear the Member for Shoreditch saying that in the Poor Law elections of Loudon in the future Party politics would have no part. Let the hon. Gentleman consult his own newspaper. From a, very attentive study of that and similar journals he was convinced that the Party in London, of which the Member for Shoreditch was a distinguished Member, would make it their one primary object to run these Poor Law elections in future on purely Party grounds. Was that a good system to have introduced into their London local life? Would it not be better to have the Poor Law administered by ex officio and elected Guardians quite independently of Party politics. He warned hon. Members opposite that in the future London Poor Law elections would, by the Radical Party, be fought on strictly Party lines, and as far as he could see, owing to the peculiar conditions of London life, those candidates would be successful who would offer the largest bribes to the poorer classes. [Cries of "No!"] Well, he was afraid so. He believed that in a few years' time that condition of affairs would cease, because the poorer classes would find that indiscriminate relief was not in their interests; but, in the first instance, at least, they were more likely to be attracted by such a bait than the poorer classes in the country districts or provincial boroughs. There were two reasons for this. The first was that without doubt a very small portion of the electorate went to the polls, and it was easier to attract a large number of those to whom they were making a direct bribe than it was to attract those who, by a sense of their own responsibility, ought to go there; and the second reason was that there was so little knowledge in the Loudon districts of the persons who were doing real good administrative work on the Vestries or Boards of Guardians. There was not 10 per cent, of the population who knew by name those who best served their interests on the Vestries and Boards of Guardians. The result would be, when they came to the popular election of a body constituted as these would be, that, partly through habit and partly through ignorance, the votes of those who had a direct and material interest in the result of these elections, taken by the big bait which would certainly be offered them, would outweigh the votes of the other class. He was not defending that class. He said it was a most regrettable and reprehensible state of things, but they must look the facts in the face; and when the right hon. Gentleman asked them to be satisfied with a very perfunctory Debate on London questions, he thought they were bound to say it was a great pity that the Local Government Act was passed with so little discussion on the part of the London Members. It was too much the habit of Governments to think London was an unimportant factor in these matters. It was the duty of London Members to point out that such matters as they were now discussing must meet with deep consideration; that London differed in it, local conditions from other parts of the United Kingdom, and that it was necessary to take into consideration the reasons they gave against exactly assimilating London with other portions of the United Kingdom, he thought he might tax the President of the Local Government Board with inconsistency. The right hon. Gentleman had boasted of having availed himself of the powers he had of appointing nominated Guardians to certain Unions in London. He had by that action admitted that the power was a good one. Why, therefore, should he do away with the instrument he had admitted to be a good one? Why was he doing away, recklessly and gratuitously, with the means of strengthening the administration of the Poor Law of which he had been too glad to avail himself? The right hon. Gentleman had said hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House were bound by some secret compromise. He had not the least idea of what, it was, and until he saw put down on Paper in that House the exact terms of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman intended to introduce, he could only say he should regard this Bill and the Poor Law portions of it by the light of the actual clause as it stood at present. He could only say that from a Loudon point of view he was afraid the clause would lead to a worse, and not to a better, administration of the Poor Law. He therefore cordially supported the Amendment.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, there was one point in which he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had last spoken, and that was that it was impossible, and it would be undesirable even if it were possible, for any Government to bind this House or any Member by means of any private arrangement. It was highly undesirable that any attempt should be made to do anything of the kind, and he was quite certain that no attempt would be made to do anything of the kind by responsible Ministers of the Crown. What an arrangement of the kind meant was an arrangement between the responsible Leaders of the two Parties, which hound themselves and colleagues, but no one else. On one memorable former occasion such an arrangement did not bind any other Member of the House, and they had frequently the spectacle of Members on one side and then on the other repudiating their Leaders in regard to such arrangements, which, as he had said, could only bind those Leaders, and could not possibly bind the House of Commons or any individual Member of the House. Having agreed with the hon. Member on that one point, he could agree with him on no other, because, having had a good deal to do with the administration of the Poor Law in Loudon, he did not share in the belief in the dangers to which his hon. Friend looked forward. His hon. Friend and the Mover of the Amendment argued that the case of Loudon was peculiar, and that there were reasons why, in the case of London, there should be a higher control given in Loudon than to any other part of the country. But under the Bill this higher control in London would continue to exist because it did not interfere with those provisions for the special administration of London which led to the creation of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, which would continue to exist, and give a higher control on the part of the Local Government Board in London than in the rest of the country. He should like to address himself for one moment to what had fallen from the hon. Member in regard to the interference of Party in these Guardian elections. His position was rather a delicate one in connection with these matters, and he hoped to say not one word which would give offence to anyone. His only wish was simply to put the facts before the House. He admitted fully, having been for many years elected by the Conservative Party to the Chairmanship of the Chelsea Board, that politics never entered into the proceedings of Boards of Guardians when they were once elected; but it would be impossible to prevent politics entering into the election of Guardians. In the case of the Chelsea Guardians, to which the hon. and learned Member referred, the whole of the 20 Members were asked for on behalf of Party year by year, and the Conservative Party always sent out circulars recommending 20 candidates, and 18 out of the 20 had been chosen from that particular list. It was, therefore, a little late in the day for the hon. Member to come to this House and beg them to reject the clause in the interest of the purity of local Poor Law work as against Party influences when this was the case.

MR. WHLTMORE

said, he was not particularly concerned with the practice of the election for the Guardians of Chelsea. He believed the Conservative organisation recommended a certain list, but not on the ground of politics, because it included the names of several of the best Liberals in Chelsea, and the right hon. Gentleman himself was always re-elected Chairman.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he began by by saying that in the Board-room politics were never heard of. That was the case throughout the country; but as regarded the elections themselves, whatever honour might attach to the representation of the parish, and its being sought by particular Parties, full ail vantage was taken of that by the Party to which the hon. Member belonged in the course of these elections; and although it was the case that during the! last two or three years there had been two Liberals upon the Conservative list, making two out of the 20, still 16 to two was a strong proportion to be elected, and 18 to two was the proportion asked for. Let him deal with something far more important. It was the suggestion of his hon. Friend that there would he little interest taken in the polls of these local elections, and that they would not get a proper representation of the constituency. He did not agree with this, and he pointed to the fact that in many London constituencies at the last County Council election there was an extraordinarily high poll. In the borough which the hon. Member himself represented there was a very large poll at the last County Council election, and he never saw more interest taken in any election. The hon. Member told the House that under the Government proposal the Poor Law administration would he handed over to bodies virtually similar to the existing Vestries. But that was not the case. The Vestries were subject to a qualification varying from £25 to £40, and consequently the working people and the whole of I he lodger voters were absolutely excluded from all possibility of sitting on these Boards. The result was that the Vestries had fallen into the hands of a, particular class, he believed that the Poor Law Hoards in the future would he much more widely representative than in the past. But supposing that Party did enter into the conflicts in the future as in the past, was there not some reason to believe that when the absolute predominance now given to one political Party, along with plural votes and proxies, was got rid of—and he deplored the intrusion of Party, and had fought against it—would it not he the case that all political Parties would find it their interest to run the strongest men on each side? Each side would find it to their interest to run the men of their Party who were strongest as Poor Law administrators, and they would thus he more likely to get a more representative Board in some districts than they had at present.

* MR. BARTLEY

said, this was a question which closely concerned London, and in spite of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, London Members had a right to say a few words upon it, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman's appeal to his own followers had produced one of the longest speeches from one of those followers who was not even a London Member. The Reports of the Local Government Board showed that in matters of Poor Law administration London had always been considered separately from the rest of the country. The consideration of the condition of the poor of London was always considered separately, and the general effect of the poverty of London, the condition of the people of London, and the migration of the country people to London, which largely tended to produce much of the poverty here, were always largely dwelt upon in these Reports. That clearly showed that in the matter of the Poor Law the Metropolis required a totally different consideration to the rest of the country, and had always received ii. He believed the clause would very seriously affect the condition of the Metropolis. It was quite true that, to a certain extent, they had discussed the question of making the Guardians to he elected entirely on the popular vote, but they had not discussed it from the point of view of London itself. Not only had they had in London a large number of these ex officio Guardians, who had done most excellent work, but in order to make things better they had actually provided, under a special Act, that there should he these nominated Guardians under the Local Government Board. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had said that London would remain more specially under the Local Government Board. That was to say, that one of the reasons for putting London under this general scheme was that there were more powers in the Local Government Board in order to maintain this right. If it was really right and proper that that Act should remain on the Statute Book, and that they should give the Local Government Board a power over the management of the London poor which was not given in any other part of the United Kingdom, surely that showed their contention was correct, and before they allowed this great change in the machinery of the Poor Law to he adopted in London they ought to have a more cogent reason than had yet been given. No one could dispute that when these Guardians were absolutely and solely dependent for their existence on the popular vote two things would happen. The first was that there would be a great appeal for an increase in outdoor relief, and he contended that before any alteration in the Poor Law was made the great question of the machinery and the management of outdoor relief should be debated very fully in this House. The effect upon this Metropolis of having Guardians entirely elected on the popular vote would be to lead candidates to compete one against another as to the proper form of relief to be given. Another question which would come up at the election of these Guardians would be that of the want of employment, and nothing could be more disastrous than that the persons who were very largely interested in both questions—of outdoor relief and the providing of employment—should have the controlling voice in the election of these bodies. The question of the effect on the rates was comparatively a small matter, but the effect on the poor themselves would be most disastrous. There was no doubt that in most of the London districts those people who were either the recipients of relief or wore verging on pauperism would, under the clause, have a preponderating vote in the election of Guardians. He looked with the gravest apprehension on such a proposal, which he regarded as likely to throw back the social improvement of London a great deal. If the matter was considered quite apart from political considerations, and in the interests of the masses of the poor, this clause would not be inserted, and this change in the administration of Poor Law relief would not be made.

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, the hon. Member for Chelsea had evidently misunderstood what he had said in a previous Debate as to the election of Guardians in the future. What he then said was that in his opinion the election of Guardians under a local and popular franchise would not in any sense follow the lines which the hon. Member who had just spoken indicated, and would in no sense be decided on the question of outdoor relief. The three speeches they had listened to from gentlemen opposite were based on the belief that popularly-elected Guardians would necessarily go wrong. They argued that, candidates would bid for office by offering unlimited outdoor relief, that they would be returned upon that offer, and that when elected they would carry it out. He disputed every one of those points. He maintained that there were no such sufferers from indiscriminate outdoor relief as the working classes; and they knew this to be the case. Let them look at what was the actual state of affairs now. Hon. Members opposite talked as if it were the ex officio Guardians alone who had been the best and wisest administrators of the Poor Law. That was not the case. In the parish of which Shoreditch formed a portion there had only been two nominated Guardians, and for a long time only one, and be would venture to say that these nominated Guardians had in no sense taken any different attitude from that of the generality of the Poor Law Guardians. He ventured to say that the parish of Shoreditch and other parishes in London could be pointed to as well-administered parishes under the Poor Law. The particular district with which he was associated had not more than the average amount of outdoor relief, and it was in every respect, he submitted, a well-managed Poor Law district. This administration was carried out not entirely by persons elected on the plural vote. He had had reason to inquire into the matter, and ho found that the overwhelming number were appointed quite irrespective of the plural vote. They had, therefore, a case in point in which the election was carried out on the plan they were going to make general, and the results, as has boon shown, had not been characterised by the terrible consequences that hon. Members opposite seemed to anticipate. It has been said by the hon. Member for Islington that they were treated differently from the rest of the country. They had been treated differently, but not so far as the questions of qualification or election of Guardians were considered. On these two points they were on all-fours with the rest of the country, and it was perfectly ridiculous that they should make a Poor Law system for the rest of the country in which they gave qualifications of a certain kind, and that London should be exempted from it. They might as well suggest to exempt Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, or even the urban districts which were to be included. Hon. Members opposite did not speak of these large towns; they confined their remarks to London. One of the reasons given by them for this exemption was, that the London ratepayers would not come forward to vote. It was a fact, unfortunately, that the London ratepayers did not vote in large numbers; but the taunt came with an ill grace from the opponents of the London County Council. Where a small number of electors voted in any local election in London, the percentage who abstained from going to the poll was not peculiar to the bettor classes—he thought that was the term used by an hon. Member.

* MR. WHITMORE

The well-to-do classes.

MR. J. STUART

said, very well: the well-to-do classes. It was not peculiar to them; it was general. He could not admit that abstention was confined to any particular class. Something had been said about the Vestries being better fitted than the Guardians for the distribution of outdoor relief, and one hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that a reason why they were better fitted was that they were not elected for that purpose. He had never heard any argument of that character. A great improvement, in his opinion, would be made by the throwing open of electoral power to a larger class of voters. There was no one who was acquainted with the poorer districts of London but was aware that suitable persons were prevented from taking part in the work of the Poor Law by reason of the qualifications that existed. It was said that those who best administered the Poor Law in the past were the nominated Guardians. He challenged that statement. No doubt some of the nominated Guardians had done useful work; but in the majority of cases the credit of efficient administration was due to the elected Guardians. In Shore-ditch there was hardly any place where there was so much of the elective element at work; and he could point to the results that had followed upon the administration there. Look at the children, for instance—the steps that had been taken by the establishment of schools in the country to remove as far as possible the pauper taint. This, and more, had been done under the elected Guardians—by Guardians who were elected on a popular basis. He trusted, therefore, that the good work which had been achieved in the administration of the Poor Law by elected Guardians in London would not be forgotten in the consideration of this question.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he had had the honour of being elected for Paddington parish, and he could say that dining the election and at the Guardians' meetings there he had never heard politics alluded to. He would point out that as at present drawn the Bill would cause great difficulty in such places as Wigan, where they had out-townships. As the clause stood, he thought a very unworkable plan would be introduced, inasmuch as in the town of Wigan they would have one system of election and in the out-townships a different system would prevail.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 50.—(Division List, No. 410.)

Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 7, after the word "district," to insert the words "and the provisions of this Act, with respect to the qualification of the electors of Urban District Councillors, and of the persons to be elected, and with respect to the mode of conducting the election shall apply to the Local Board of Woolwich and to the Vestries elected under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, or any Act amending those Acts, and so far as respects the qualification of persons to be elected to members of the District Boards under the said Act."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR C. W. DILKE

moved, as an Amendment, to add, at the end, the words— And no person shall, ex officio, be a member or chairman of any of the said Vestries. He said, the earlier portion of the Bill abolished the Common Law provisions with regard to rural Vestries and also the special provisions with regard to rural Vestries which were brought in by the Act of George III. Before that Act there was some doubt whether the Incumbent of the parish took the chair at the Vestry as a matter of right or of custom, or whether the custom was the same in all parishes. The doubt was removed by the Act of George III., which made the Incumbent ex officio chairman of the Vestry. That had been put an end to by the first part of the Bill. The object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was, he understood, to assimilate the law in London to the law in the rural districts in regard to Parish Vestries. In London there was a system of Select Vestries, which was in some respect like, but not precisely similar to, the select parishes in rural districts. The ex officio element had been put an end to in rural Vestries, and it would, therefore, be anomalous to retain in London Vestries the ex officio membership of the Incumbent as chairman and of the Churchwardens. There were some of the great London parishes in which the Incumbent was the best man in the parish for the chairmanship of the Vestry, and would have the same authority if lie were elected by the Vestry. But there were other parishes where he would be by no means the best man, and in some of these parishes he took the chair. There were also cases where the Incumbent never attended the Vestry, but in many of these cases he would attend if he were not ex officio chairman. In one parish which he had watched for many years the Incumbent was a very active man in local affairs, and would stand for election if eligible, but he only attended the Vestry on Easter Tuesday to nominate his Churchwarden because of his objection to occupy the chair ex officio. On one occasion he had been most anxious to take up the subject of prosecutions for Sunday trading, but he had felt great difficulty in attending because he would have had to occupy the chair. Although he considered it would be wise to assimilate London to the rest of the country, if the ex officio chairmanship of the Incumbent were got rid of he would care less about the retention of the ex officio members.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In page 17, line 7, at end, to add "And no person shall, ex officio, be a member or chairman of any of the said Vestries."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)

Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Committee would recollect that in constituting the Parish Councils and in giving them a purely secular organisation the Government had left the Parish Vestries entirely alone, and had excluded from the jurisdiction of the Parish Councils anything relating to the affairs of the Church. The London Vestries were, of course, very different from the Vestries in any other part of the Kingdom. They were largely controlled by the Metropolis Management Act of 1855, and under that Act there were ex officio members—namely, the Incumbent and Churchwardens. An Act was passed in 1856 which, with various savings and exemptions, transferred to the Vestries the affairs of the Church. It was very difficult to ascertain what the affairs of the Church were which were transferred, but they were not of a very prominent or exceptional character. But it would not be in harmony with the principles on which the Bill was founded if they were to exclude the ex officio members who were on those Vestries in respect of the affairs of the Church. He would therefore ask the Committee to accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment so far as the chairmanship of the Incumbent was concerned. He thought a conclusive case had been made out on that point. If his right hon. Friend would strike out of his Amendment the words "member or" he would accept it on behalf of the Government.

* MR. WHITMORE

said, he hoped there would be no Party conflict upon this matter, as he knew from actual experience that there were many districts in London where the removal of the Vestrymen's qualification was required by practical necessity. In the same way, or at the same time, he thought they ought to change the Register for Vestry elections. He had nothing to say against the proposed addition of the right hon. Gentleman. He was sorry, however, that this change should be made in this way, however beneficial it was. All parties were agreed that this would be a good thing to extend District Councils to London. They all wished to see the number of Vestrymen diminished, the duties of the Vestries increased, and greater correspondence and connection between the County Council and District Authorities. He was rather afraid that this piecemeal and rather accidental reform of the London Vestries which had been put in the Bill at this late period, and which was not in the original project, would to a great extent counteract that impetus which would have enabled either Party on an early date to bring about complete reform of the London Vestries. Therefore, while unhesitatingly supporting this particular Amendment, he confessed he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had been driven into taking a course which would prevent that early and complete settlement which they all desired to see. In 1890 the right hon. Member for Halifax moved an Amendment to the Address expressing regret that no intention was expressed of dealing with District or Parochial Councils, or in carrying further in the Metropolis or elsewhere the organisation and power of local government; and, speaking on that Amendment, the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Causton) used these words— London requires District Councils. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has said that the question of District Councils is not an urgent one. I dissent from that. I say, on the contrary, that it is most urgent. He (Mr. Whitmore) ventured to agree most heartily with that view, and he believed that what they were now doing would take away the motive force required to induce a Government to bring about this urgently required reform. At the same time, he approved of the Amendment, and would vote for it.

MR. J. ROWLANDS

said, he desired to acknowledge the support received from the hon. Member who had just spoken in the attempt they had made to get the law altered in the direction in which the right hon. Gentleman was now altering it. Hitherto, unfortunately, they had met the fate which usually attended private Members who brought forward Bills—that was to say, they had not succeeded. With regard to the proposal being opportune, he endorsed all that the hon. Member had said as to the necessity for having District Councils for London at an early date. He believed this was one of the reforms most required in Loudon. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for putting his Amendment on the Paper, for at present there was a doubt as to what the qualification really was. There were a number of qualifications in the case of Vestrymen, and the doubt had led to a number of legal actions. During the past year a whole series of actions had been brought by persons who were not of the most substantial character, and there was some reason to believe that to escape the cost of litigation the common informer had been paid off. The Amendment would clear away these difficulties, and it would put no difficulty in the way of dealing with District Councils for London in the near future.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he fell in with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, for which there was a great deal to say. No doubt London Vestries did elect Church trustees. On the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment be (Sir C. Dilke) should like to ask a question which, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to answer. Could he do anything towards applying the Corrupt Practices Act to these elections in London? It did not apply to them now. There was no desire to have a monopoly of corruption in London, but at present only the Common Law applied to these elections. An application of the Corrupt Practices Act could be included in the Schedule. Another question he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman was this: He was disfranchising a large number of married women by the Bill, and he (Sir C. Dilke) wished to know if he would soon put on the Paper an Amendment by which he proposed to prevent that?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the application of the Corrupt Practices Act would be provided for in Clause 35.

SIR C. W. DILKE

It does not now.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right, hon. Baronet had not seen the new clause. With regard to the question of the disfranchisement of married women, he would put down a clause to meet the case very shortly.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Baronet should withdraw his Amendment so that it can be brought up in an amended form.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to:— To add, at the end, "and no person shall, ex officio, be a chairman of any of the said Vestries."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)

asked the attention of the Committee to what he considered a very important point in connection with some large boroughs. Under the section which had just been approved county boroughs were brought under the provision of this measure in regard to the election of Guardians. He intended to move the insertion of words in the clause, and he would here state the object, remarking that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would consent to consider them between now and the Report stage it would satisfy him. Let them take such a county borough as Liverpool. Liverpool was one largo parish entirely within the boundary, containing 25,000 voters for Guardians rated at nearly £2,000,000 a year, and yet under this Bill the whole of that area, and that enormous electorate which, for Parliamentary purposes, was divided into three divisions, would be, as regarded the election of Guardians, one indivisible whole. It did not matter very much as regarded the election of Guardians so long as there was plural voting; but plural voting having been disposed of, an alteration was necessary, so that the large ratepayers should be put upon an equality with those who paid a comparatively small amount of rates. It was certainly an anomaly that a place which returned three Members of Parliament should be treated as a single district for the election of Guardians.

MR. STOREY (interrupting)

Let us have the Amendment, so that we may consider it.

MR. FORWOOD

I am going to conclude by moving an Amendment, and I take it I am at liberty to choose my own time for reading that Amendment.

MR. STOREY

No.

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is going to move an Amendment, and he can, if he chooses, reserve moving it until he has concluded his speech.

MR. STOREY

I would ask for your ruling on the point.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Rule is that any hon. Member can read the Amendment he is moving at the end of his speech.

MR. STOREY

On a point of Order, with due respect, I shall ask your consideration of this suggestion of mine. If that be the Rule of the House it is possible for an hon. Member to consume half an hour or an hour in explaining an Amendment, which at the last he reads, and then it is found out of Order. I submit that the invariable Rule has been for an hon. Member to read his Amendment first, so that we may be able to take that exception if necessary.

THE CHAIRMAN

It may be the more convenient Rule that the Amendment should be submitted to the Chairman, and I have no hesitation in repeating what I have said before, that these manuscript Amendments give extreme difficulty and are very embarrassing to to the Chair. At the same time, the Rule of the House is as I have already laid down.

MR. FORWOOD

said, he should have no objection to read the Amendment at once. He had no wish whatever to inconvenience the Committee, but he thought it would have been more convenient to have offered some explanation of what he desired to secure first. His Amendment was to add, after the Amendment just adopted, the following words:— In case of parishes situated wholly within a county borough, or parishes which are partly within and partly without the boundaries of such borough, and which for municipal purposes form wards or are divided into wards, but are not so divided for the election of Guardians, the Local Government Board shall, before the appointed day, and before any such election is held under this Act, divide such parishes or portion of parishes within the boundary of the borough into wards and apportion the number of Guardians to be elected by such wards. He was perfectly aware that under the Local Government Act there was power, on the application of a Board of Guardians, to have such districts divided into wards; but in all probability, if the Bill was passed without any such proviso, there would be great difficulty in persuading Boards of Guardians elected for the parish of Liverpool to consent to a division of the district into wards, and so preventing the large ratepayers having a proper voice in the election of Guardians. At present there were outside the parish of Liverpool five other districts containing 26,000 electors, and all were dealt with as one district in regard to the election of Guardians. His whole object was to make it compulsory, before the election of Guardians took place, that the districts should be divided into wards without even an application from the Boards of Guardians, as was now provided for by the Local Government Act of 1888. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to consider this matter between now and the Report stage he would be satisfied.

Amendment proposed, To add at the end of the last Amendment the words—" In case of parishes situated wholly within a county borough, or parishes which are partly within and partly without the boundaries of such boroughs, and which for municipal purposes form wards, or are divided into wards, but are not so divided for the election of Guardians, the Local Government Board shall before the appointed day and before any such election is held under this Act, divide such parishes, or portion of parishes within the boundary of the borough, into wards, and apportion the number of Guardians to be elected by such wards."—(Mr. Forwood.)

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

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, that if this Amendment were necessary it would be necessary in a wider form than that proposed, because there were a great, many places in Loudon and all over the country in a similar position to Liverpool. But he thought there was ample power under the Act of 1888 and under this Bill by which either the County Councils or the Local Government Board could do what the right hon. Member for Orms-kirk desired to have done.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

agreed with the right hon. Baronet that it could be done both under the existing law and under the provisions of this Bill. He admitted that it was an important matter, and must be considered; but he would point out to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he had had some communication with Liverpool upon the subject of the Liverpool parochial arrangements—with reference to the Select Vestry, who were the body constituting the Board of Guardians—and he had put down Amendments which he understood would meet the requirements of the case. This point had not been mentioned in the correspondence with him. There was no Amendment on the Paper to give him notice of the point, and now at the last moment, in a manuscript Amendment, the question was raised. He thought they had fully satisfied the Liverpool case, but he would investigate it further. He would, however, point out that they could not give different legislation to Liverpool to that which they gave to other parts of the country. He would give an undertaking that this other aspect of the Liverpool case should be looked into, though he thought it would be dealt with in this Bill under Clause 47.

* SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, would look at the question in its wider form, presented by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. He (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) confessed he thought that the election of Guardians, like that of Members of Parliament, should be by a system of single-member districts, and where the parish had more than one Guardian that parish should be divided into wards. It was all very well to say that there were powers already existing for such a purpose, but they were comparatively rarely exercised. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not rest satisfied with the powers of division in the Bill, but would deal specially with the point raised.

MR. J. STUART

hoped that the proposal would not be accepted in its entirety, because it would be inconvenient in London to divide districts into single-member wards.

MR. STOREY

said, that in all large towns it would be undesirable. He would point out that the effect in Sunderland would be that, having 16 wards for municipal purposes, there would have to be 29 wards if the proposal were carried out. In his opinion the Bill conferred quite sufficient power to meet all practical needs.

SIR A. ROLLIT

thought the proposal was a good one, but the matter should be dealt with comprehensively, if at all. He could not see any distinction between county boroughs and non-county boroughs in the matter. There were places of below 50,000 inhabitants where the same difficulty would exist.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, the difficulty in London as to the division of parishes into wards was this—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was not going to touch that point. He had enough on his shoulders already.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he might at any rate mention the difficulty here, because whatever power was taken in the Bill would probably apply to London as well as to other places. Under the Act of 1855 and Amending Acts the London County Council had power to divide certain parishes into wards; but if they once divided a parish into two wards and the population gradually increased, they had no power under the Act to divide it into three or four or more wards. He hoped that if anything was going to be done in the Act to arrange wards in London or elsewhere, he would bear in mind the mistake made in the Act of 1855.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he rose to move an Amendment in fulfilment of a promise he had given at an early period of the discussion of the Bill. Attention had been called to two or three cases. First, there was the case of what were called the urban rural parishes—parishes which were under urban administration and which formed urban districts, but which for all practical purposes were of a rural character. Attention was called to the case of urban districts and of municipal boroughs. Suggestions were made from both sides of the House that some elastic powers should be inserted in the Bill. Some hon. Members thought that the County Council and others thought the Local Government Board should be able to confer powers on the rural parishes and the urban rural districts and municipal boroughs. The Committee would remember that the matter arose again and again under the first part of the Bill, and he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had promised to see what could be done in order that all parts of the community might have the advantage of some of these powers which had been conferred on rural parishes. After the best consideration the Government had been able to give to the matter, they had arrived at the conclusion embodied in Sub-section (2) he now moved—namely— The Local Government Board may, on the application of the Council of any municipal borough, or of any other urban district, make an Order conferring on that Council or some other Representative Body within the borough or district all or any of the following matters—namely, the appointment of Overseers and Assistant Overseers, the powers, duties, and liabilities of Overseers, and the powers, duties, and liabilities of a Parish Council, and applying with the necessary modifications the provisions of this Act with reference thereto. The Order may provide for its operation extending either to the whole or to specified parts of the area of the borough or urban district, and may make such provisions as seem necessary for carrying the Order into effect. The Order shall not alter the incidence of any rate, and shall make such provisions as may seem necessary and just for the preservation of the existing interests of paid officers. The foregoing enactment respecting Councils of urban districts shall apply to the Administrative County of London in like manner as if the district of each Sanitary Authority in London were an urban district, and the Sanitary Authority were the Council of that district. An Order under this section may also be made on the application of any Representative Body within a borough or district. There wore Select Vestries and municipal boroughs and Representative Bodies in large towns that might desire to have these powers, and the Government saw no objection to their having them. He did not intend to trouble the Committee with a large defence or explanation of the clause. The discussion of the subject had been going on all through the Bill, and in framing the Amendment he had to the best of his ability endeavoured to carry out the general wish of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 17, line 12, at end, to insert—"The Local Government Board may, on the application of the Council of any municipal borough or of any other urban district, make an Order conferring on that Council or some other Representative Body within the borough or district all or any of the following matters—namely, the appointment of Overseers and Assistant Overseers, the powers, duties, and liabilities of Overseers, and the powers, duties, and liabilities of a Parish Council, and applying with the necessary modifications the provisions of this Act with reference thereto. The Order may provide for its operation extending, either to the whole or to specified parts of the area of the borough or urban district, and may make such provisions as seem necessary for carrying the Order into effect. The Order shall not alter the incidence of any rate, and shall make such provisions as may seem necessary and just for the preservation of the existing interests of paid officers. The foregoing enactment respecting Councils of urban districts shall apply to the Administrative County of London in like manner as if the district of each Sanitary Authority in London were an urban district, and the Sanitary Authority were the Council of that district. An Order under this section may also be made on the application of any Representative Body within a borough or district."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

* SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he wished to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, the insertion, after the words "liabilities of a Parish Council," of the words "except those conferred by Section 13 of this Act with respect to the appointment of trustees." He confessed he thought that legislation of this kind was open to very great objection. This measure, as introduced, and even as road a second time, was considered as a Parish Councils Bill applying to rural parishes rather than as one applicable to parishes in urban districts or in large boroughs. Now, by this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman practically extended the first part of the to the Metropolis and other large towns in England. That might be right or it might be wrong. He did not it was wrong, but what he did say was that none of the large towns had had more than a month's or six weeks' notice of this proposal. So far as the Parish Councils part of the Bill was concerned, it had attracted no attention at all in the towns save in the Metropolis. Ho wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to what would happen under the clause he now proposed. Section 13 empowered Parish Councils to appoint the trustees of charities in place of the Churchwardens and Overseers, and by that famous sub-section introduced subsequently that power was extended to the appointment of a majority of the trustees in the case of all charities not being ecclesiastical charities. He did not wish to argue whether it was right or wrong to empower the Parish Council to appoint the trustees of charities within the parish. That was one thing, but it was quite another thing to empower a Town Council or a Sanitary Authority in a district of London to appoint the trustees of a charity within one of many parishes in the area that the Town Council or Sanitary Authority controlled. They were practically allowing a Town Council, it might be of a very large city, like the City of Bristol, to appoint a majority of the trustees of a charity in a small parish within that city, although the vast majority of those who had elected the Town Council had not the slightest interest in the charity, and that when they did not allow the very same Town Council to appoint any trustees on the Managing Body of a charity the benefits of which extended to the whole of the electors who returned the whole Town Council. He must say the anomaly seemed to him a gross absurdity. No one would ever have proposed, with regard to rural parishes, that the County Council and not the Parish Council should have the appointment of the majority of the trustees of a charity that would benefit only a particular parish. Yet that was precisely what the right hon. Gentleman was proposing with regard to the large town. He did not wish to raise a general discussion on the clause. Ho merely instanced this as being a thing which was grossly unfair. Putting aside religion and every question of that kind, it appeared to him grossly unfair that the electors of a large town should be intrusted with the election of the trustees of a charity the benefits of which were confined to a small area within that town. He did not believe that the inhabitants of the large towns or the Metropolis had the least idea that the proposals of the Government would have any such effect as this. It would probably be easy if one went through the various clauses of the Bill to which they had already agreed with regard to Parish Councils to show that the extension which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to towns and urban districts, of a measure which was intended to apply solely to rural parishes, would have a most anomalous and extraordinary effect. He protested against this particular provision, and therefore he proposed to insert the words of which he had given notice.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 6, after the word "Council." to insert the words "except those conferred by Section 13 of this Act with respect to the appointment of trustees."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

MR H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Baronet was not in the House at a quarter to 9 when he had to refer to a somewhat similar criticism to that which the right hon. Baronet had just uttered—namely, that the Bill was introduced to deal exclusively or mainly with the rural districts. No doubt the Bill had been called, in popular language, a Parish Councils Bill, but he (Mr. H.H. Fowler) had never adopted that phrase. On the contrary, he had accepted the correction of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who protested against its use, and the neglect to employ the regular title of the Bill, which was a Local Government Bill for England and Wales. The Government had always attached as much importance to Part II. and other parts of the Bill as to the Parish Councils part. The Government had had a good deal of conflict on this point, and they had always said that the completion of the system of local government in urban districts was of as much importance as the completion of the system of local government in rural districts. If the Government had been prepared to abandon the second part of the Bill they might have had the Royal Assent to that part relating to Parish Councils before the Christmas holidays.

Several hon. MEMBERS

No, no.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That was his opinion, but he did not wish to discuss the point. He wished to put this—that it had always been a prominent feature of the Bill that it should extend to urban districts. With reference to the proposed power of those districts he would remind the right hon. Baronet that it was quite optional. There was no compulsory extension of power. The right hon. Baronet said that the inhabitants of large towns would be very much surprised at the proposed enlargement of their powers, or, at all events, that their attention had not been called to it; but, unless they saw fit to ask the Local Government Board, there would be no extension of these powers given to any one of the urban localities. Unless the Corporation of a city like Bristol made such an application these powers would not be exercised. But supposing the Representative Authority of a large town applied to have these powers, the right hon. Baronet said they should take out one specific power. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was not going to revive the long controversy on Clause 13. They must take the Bill as it now stood. The Committee had decided that in the case of any parish charities, not being ecclesiastical, and therefore, being purely secular for the benefit of the poor, and the poor alone, the Representative Authority of the parish was to have a preponderating voice in the appointment of trustees. If that was right—and the House had decided that it was—for a rural parish, why should it be wrong for an urban district running side by side with it in the same county and locality, and having very much the same class of authority—for a very large number of urban districts in this country were only distinguishable from rural districts in possessing, for some reason or other, a different form of government. In Lancashire and Yorkshire there were large areas in which urban districts preponderated; and why should not their Local Authorities have powers which had been conferred upon Parish Councils? It seemed to him that they were, perhaps, much better fitted for the exercise of that jurisdiction than many of the authorities which had been mentioned. So far as London was concerned it was considered that the Vestries and District Boards were the equivalent of the authorities of the urban sanitary districts. The right hon. Baronet asked why should they appoint the Representative Authorities of large areas to have a voice in the administration of charities in a portion of the area?

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

To have the control of them.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The appointment of trustees—nothing more. It did not follow that the Local Authority would control the expenditure. He had always thought that immense importance was to be attached to that point. In the case of Bristol there were, no doubt, parochial charities, and lie appealed to the right hon. Baronet to say what harm could accrue if the Corporation in its collective capacity had the power of appointing trustees. On the Corporation of Bristol each parish was represented.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

In a small way.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said that, according to his municipal experience on all questions that affected special wards, it was always usual to consult the members for those; specific wards in dealing with such questions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liverpool shook his head, but Liverpool, they all knew, was an exception in these matters. It ha I had an amount of political controversy imported into its Corporation that he did not think prevailed in any other Corporation in the Kingdom. It was optional with the Corporation to apply for power, and it was optional with the Local Government Board to grant it; and in the exercise of the two options no injustice could be done.

MR. W. LONG

said, he had listened to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board with astonishment. The right hon. Gentleman told them, in the first place, that this proposal had always been a part of the Bill. The answer lo that was to be found on the Amendment Paper, which they all had in their hands.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I did not say this clause.

MR. W. LONG

No; that urban government had always been in the Bill. What on earth had the measure to do with urban government save as regarded the reconstitution of District Councils when it was first introduced? It was rather misleading the Committee to suggest that this provision was to be found in the early part of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman's argument was worth anything it pointed in the direction of the proceedings of the Committee hitherto in regard to charities having been entirely wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman had been consistent, he would have placed the administration of charities in the hands not of the Parish Councils, but of the County Councils. This was one of the difficulties in which the right, hon. Gentleman had been landed, not by his own fault but by the misfortune of having to listen to various complaints from his own side, and to embody in the Bill provisions which he never contemplated when he first drafted it. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to Clause 29 was practically a now clause. The right hon. Gentleman said that those who appointed trustees did not control the administration of the trust. One could very easily ascertain the accuracy of that statement from the constitution of the Treasury Bench. Its occupants were appointed by the Prime Minister, and ho supposed they said that they were absolutely independent of the Prime Minister. ["No, no!"] Well, if they were not, did the Prime Minister control the trust or did he not? It was idle to spend time in arguing such a question. If there were two recognised methods of administering a trust and one individual was charged with the appointment of the trustees, it followed that he very largely governed the future administration. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that because the sole right of appointing the majority of trustees had been transferred to the Parish Council, the same power should be given to a Municipal Corporation, which represented not a parish but a collection of parishes. It seemed to him (Mr. Long) that there was nothing consistent or just or right in that proposition, and, in view of the desirability of preventing the interruption of the progress of the Bill by the inclusion in it of any fresh subject, he thought it very unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend ((Sir M. Hicks-Beach). Local Boards and Municipal Corporations were representatives not of parishes but of the whole area. The right hon. Gentleman said the power of appointing trustees would not be conferred upon them unless they asked for it. He supposed the members were all human like other people, and if they thought that they had a right to appoint the trustees they would naturally apply for the power. In that case there would be given to a Corporation or a Local Board, with, say, 25 or 75 or 100 members, the right of nominating trustees for the control, management, and distribution of a charity which affected possibly only 1-1000th part of the area. It seemed to him that this would be a most, monstrous injustice. There was nothing on earth in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) which the Government could not accept and which would not be in absolute conformity with what had been done in Clause 13 of the Bill. At an earlier stage in Committee he had recommended that the powers which were to be conferred on Parish Councils should be given to urban districts, but that was before Clause 13 had been altered. If now the Government accepted the Amendment of his right hon. Friend he should not have a word to say against their proposal. Unless, however, they were prepared to reconsider their determination on that point he should feel bound to offer the most strenuous objection to their proposal.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the case of a municipal borough absorbing the charities of small districts was one that might have to be dealt with, and he was not at all sure that it would not have to be dealt with. The point was now to him and, at first sight, he was inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. But the Amendment before the Committee went a great deal beyond that point and would have results which were not supported by the speeches made in its favour. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had on a previous occasion concurred with him in urging on the Government the extension of many of the powers contained in Part I. to urban districts. Unless the Government Amendment wore adopted, however, the application would be prevented of almost the whole of Clause 13 to urban districts. If the Government Amendment were objectionable let it be opposed on Report or in another place on its merits, but let it not be limited in such a way as to take away from parishes that wore precisely similar to rural parishes the benefits of the clause. The Amendment would apply to London, and the case of the charities in London was a very strong one. The parochial charities of London were very numerous, and they were often in practice administered not by the Overseers and Churchwardens, but by the elected Vestries. There was a very general feeling in London that they should continue to be administered by the elected Vestries. He submitted that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite went too far for the particular object in view, and that it would be better to ask the Government to deal on Report with the specific case adduced by the hon. Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. W. Long).

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

thought the Government had seriously departed from the principle they most strongly contended for when Clause 13 was under discussion. He looked upon a parochial charity as property belonging to the parish for whose benefit it had been left. It would, therefore, be wrong to give power over a charity to those who were not the owners of it or were not interested in it, but that was just what the Government Amendment proposed to do. He thought the Government would do well to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet (Sir M. Hicks-Beach). There might be a poor parish in the City of Bristol, for instance, which had particular charities belonging to it. But, if the Corporation of the City stepped in and took to itself the management of those charities, an injustice might be done to the poor parish to which the charities belonged. That such an injustice might be done was recognised when there was a question in Clause 13 of the County Council administering the charities of the different parishes within the county. The people of a parish in a city would deem themselves hardly dealt with if the administration of their charities was taken out of their hands by the representatives of the whole city. He could not see what danger would be run in accepting the Amendment. It was quite true that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said it would extend over a great part of the Clause 13, but, at the same time, he thought the administration of the charities should not be taken away from the parishes as was proposed by the right hon. Gentlemen in charge of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The Debate has been brief, but I think it has been pregnant; and everybody who has listened to it must have come to the conclusion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol has made out a conclusive case for the general principle of the Amendment. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean has also shown that the Amendment will, in some respects, go too far by excluding certain parishes from privileges which it is intended they should possess. My right, hon. Friend the Member for Bristol has, however, I think, convinced every Member of the Committee that it is an absolute departure from the principle of the Bill which has animated and directed all proceedings to give the control of a purely parochial matter to a body not purely parochial. We on this side of the House, and still less hon. Gentlemen opposite, ought not to depart from that principle. But if the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is carried in its actual terms, the result will be that the operation of Clause 13, which, however much we may object to it, is now part of the Bill, will not be extended to certain parishes, and that would be illogical. So far as London is concerned—and, of course, I do not profess to be minutely acquainted with the local government of London, but I presume that every parish has some kind of government of its own—the case does not seem to be a complex or difficult one; but there remains the case of great boroughs in the country, which it is not easy to deal with. I do not ask the Government on the spur of the moment to frame an Amendment which would cover their case; but if the right hon. Gentleman will engage to bring up a plan on Report to deal with this point, I do not see why the present discussion should continue any longer. I throw that suggestion out in the interests of peace.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he desired to remove the misconception that the boroughs had not been attending to this matter. The original Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman contemplated only the extension of this point to urban districts, but he himself before Clause 13 was discussed placed on the Paper, at the request of the organisation of the boroughs, for which he had the honour to act, an Amendment extending it to all towns and cities. He could not see why that which was to be given to parishes should be refused to boroughs. But, as one trusted with the expression of the feeling of the organisation of boroughs on that point, he ventured to express a hope that the Government would carefully consider the very striking remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, and that they would endeavour to solve the difficulty in a manner which would be acceptable to the boroughs and to the country.

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, the Committee had unanimously made the largest extension of that Bill that had yet been made in regard to the provisions as to the London Vestries. He was glad that the President of the Local Government Board bad introduced London into the clause, as he had asked the right hon. Gentleman to do a considerable time ago. He thought the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition was one that might well be acted upon.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am bound to say that I concur with the remark of the Leader of the Opposition, that there will be great difficulty in dealing with the larger boroughs. Practically that is the only difficulty of a serious character in connection with the matter. I understand that all parts of the House are agreed that the provisions of Clause 13 are to be extended to the urban districts and to the smaller Municipalities. Then the question arises as to whether some provision should be made in regard to the larger Municipalities to secure what I may call more local power inside a larger area. That is, I am bound to say, a most difficult matter, and I cannot say offhand whether such a course is possible or not. I do not know what is the number of such exceptional cases, but they will have to be looked into; and, while I would not undertake to bring up a special clause dealing with the matter, I will engage that the Solicitor General and myself shall give the question the most anxious consideration, and strive to find out whether the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Member for Bristol can be met by giving specific powers to certain representatives in the Municipal Bodies to deal with the subject.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman had thoroughly carried out in that clause the promises he made him during the Debate on Clause 13; but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind the case he had laid before him of two or three parishes grouped together in one Local Board district, and in which there was no representation for each parish.

SIR J. GORST

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he would also find considerable difficulty in dealing with some of the smaller Municipalities. He had in his mind the case of an urban district which comprised two parishes. If the charities belonged to the whole town the Urban Authority would have no power to appoint trustees, whereas if they applied to one parish, the Urban Authority, which represented the whole town, would appoint the trustees for that parish.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

On the faith of the promise of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Ameudment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. H. H. Fowler) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Clause 30 (Duties of County Council as to divided areas and small parishes).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have to move to negative this clause, and will explain why. It is a very long clause, dealing with the very complicated matter of the grouping of parishes—

MR. W. LONG (interrupting)

said, he understood, as a matter of Order, that technically the right hon. Gentleman could not move to omit the clause until all the Amendments relating to it had been disposed of. There were several Amendments on the Paper, and, while hon. Members on that side of the House had no desire to take advantage of the technicality, they would desire an opportunity of expressing their views on the changes that had been made in the clause. But if the right hon. Gentleman now moved the omission of the clause all the Amendments would ipso facto pass out of consideration.

* THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is quite right as to the point of Order. I cannot put the Question at once, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," unless with the consent of the Committee. I understood that such an arrangement had been made, and that it had been decided not to discuss the Amendments, so as to economise the time of the Committee.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is a very complicated matter. A great many questions have been raised which will have to be dealt with in connection with the clause, and in reference to which I have given certain promises to the Committee. When the Government came to construct their Amendments to the clause we found the complication to be so great, and that we should have to introduce so many new sub-sections, that it would be better to frame a new clause. I think there are already eight sub-sections, and we should have had to bring the total up to 17. We, therefore, determined to get rid of the clause altogether. I hope the new clause will be in the hands of hon. Members in a day or two, and hon. Members will be able to put down Amendments. I may add that the Government will endeavour, in order to save time, to incorporate in the new clause such Amendments as they are disposed to accept.

MR. W. LONG

said, that Members on that side had not the least desire to take any technical advantage, but the difficulty they found themselves in was this: There were other new clauses which would take precedence of this one when they came to discuss the new clauses, and so much time might be taken up on these that Members might be precluded from moving Amendments to this clause. Could they not now, by raising a discussion on some technical Amendment—or, at any rate, on the Motion "That the clause stand part of the Bill "—give expression to the views they entertained on the clause?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

There is only one new clause before this—that relating to allotments.

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. W. LONG

said, the right hon. Gentleman might be quite right that only one new clause would precede this, but the question of allotments might prove a difficult fence to negotiate, and before they got to the other side all their time might be used up. He did not think, as far as he knew the views of his hon. Friends, that there was any real division of opinion with regard to this clause; but, at the same time, some of his hon. Friends desired that there should be certain extensions of it. In this connection he might cite the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Bristol limiting the power conferred by Subsection 1, with regard to the compulsory inclusion of parishes in rural districts in the same county. The President of the Local Government Board proposed to throw upon the County Councils certain obligations with regard to rural districts and parishes; but it seemed to him that this was one of the most unpopular propositions that could be presented to the Committee. Whenever a parish ran into an adjoining county they were immediately confronted with all sorts of difficulties. Was the boundary of the parish or the boundary of the county to be altered? It was difficult to say which course would be the more unpopular of the two. The Opposition had created County Councils for the right hon. Gentleman, and he had taken advantage of their creation to throw upon them the invidious task of putting right the boundaries, at, the same time providing himself with an alternative in the shape of the action of the Local Government Board if the County Councils failed to act. But circumstances might arise through a change of Government whereby the successor of the right hon. Gentleman at the Local Government Board would be placed in an awkward position and open to the criticism of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench for failing to carry out into operation the powers of the Bill. He conceived that that would be an extremely disagreeable position for the occupants of the Government Bench. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, whether it was not possible to accept some such suggestion as that contained in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Bristol. If the Government gave the County Councils a controlling power or power of exemption where necessary, he thought, this would practically meet all the objections entertained on the Opposition Benches. If some promise of the kind was given he thought there would be no strong objection offered to the clause on the part of his hon. Friends.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, that although it did not come within his province as a private Member to protest against any arrangement come to between the occupants of the two Benches, he did feel bound to enter a protest against the manner in which the Committee had been treated with reference to the clause. It was a complicated and difficult clause; it had been before the country for many months and had given those interested in its scope a great, deal of hard work in relation to it. The County Councils Association, with which many of them were associated, had done a great, deal of hard work in considering the effect of these provisions. They had followed with the greatest interest from day to day and from week to week the Amendment which had been put on the Paper. Having prepared their Amendments to the clause, hon. Gentlemen now found to their amazement, that on the morning of the day when it was to come forward for discussion the President of the Local Government, Board had withdrawn it. If this was to be the ordinary course of procedure in relation to the Bill, the difficulties of private Members would be greatly increased. He did not think the task which the right hon. Gentleman had set the County Councils was an impracticable one, except in exceptional cases, but it was only practicable if sufficient time was allowed to the County Councils to carry out the work. Time was the essential element of the question. They had had some experience in these matters, because under the Act of 1888 the Quarter Sessions of that day were directed to carry out careful inquiries into the question of boundaries. He sat on a Committee which went fully into the matter of county boundaries; they came to a conclusion which the Government of that day never carried into law, and he thought they had good reason to complain of that. All this would now have to be gone over again, and he ventured to say that 12 months was the shortest time in which the various steps could be got through. They would have a lot of parishes to deal with meanwhile which would be devided by the operation of the Act, and they would be amalgamating portions of parishes with adjoining parishes. Were they to suspend the benefits of the Parish Council clauses in respect of those parishes for 12 months until they could arrive at some satisfactory disposition of the future of the parish? Would there not be considerable complaint if they had to take that proceeding? He hoped the County Councils would not be bound down too closely with regard to special arrangements where the rural sanitary districts and the parishes were divided. They ought to have a free hand; he thought that in many cases they ought to be allowed to make an Order which should be final without waiting three months for an appeal. The time might be shortened to one mouth, and the Government, having imposed this task, were bound to give the Local Authorities every chance of carrying it out as speedily as possible to the satisfaction of the inhabitants of the districts affected.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he hoped that the Amendments to the clause on the Paper would be carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman before he brought up his new clause.

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

asked the right hon. Gentleman to have regard to a short discussion on an earlier clause of the Bill which had reference to this matter. He considered the present proposals too drastic, and hoped they would be altered.

Mr. H. H. FOWLER

I do not want to prolong this discussion, and I quite recognise that this is not a question on which there should be any Party feeling or division. It is desirable to make this clause as workable as possible, and we desire the assistance of all sides of the House, and especially the assistance of those who had had very great experience. I do not desire now to go into the character of my clause, and it would be unwise to do so. We will consider all these Amendments. I fully appreciate what has been said by the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse), and I hope my new clause will contain proposals which will be satisfactory to him. I will also give the most careful attention to the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division (Commander Bethell), and to that of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury). My desire is not only to make it a good clause but a workable one.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause 31 (Register of parochial electors).

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

had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In page 19, line 7, to leave out from the beginning, to "and," in line 10, and insert,—

1. "(1) In all counties and boroughs the following supplementary lists shall be prepared and revised, and allowed, by the same persons at the same time and in the same manner, as nearly as circumstances will allow, as the Parliamentary Register of Electors and the Local Government Register of Electors respectively:
   1. (a) A list of all the women, both married and single, who would be entitled to be on the Parliamentary Register of Electors if they were men;
   2. (b) A list of all the married women who would be entitled to be on the Local Government Register of Electors if they were single;
   and the Local Government Register of Electors, the Parliamentary Register of Electors, and the two supplementary lists by this section directed to be made shall, so far as they relate to a parish, form the Register of the parochial electors of the parish."

He said, he did not wish to move the Amendment, but perhaps the President of the Local Government Board would tell the Committee whether he considered that the Amendment he had himself undertaken to move as a now clause would be the best course, and whether he had satisfied himself that he would be able to move the new clause in the full sense in which he had given the Committee to understand it would be moved.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I cannot improve that question. I am going to put down a new clause to enable married women to vote, but I cannot say, before I have the decision of the Chairman, whether I should be allowed to move it. I am not certain that the forms of the House will allow me to move the Amendment in as broad a form as I should desire, but I shall put the Amendment down in the broadest possible way in fulfilment of the pledge I gave, and the Chairman will then decide whether that Amendment can be moved in that form or whether it will have to he restricted.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

moved the following Amendment:— But any person may attend a parish meeting relating to an election at which he is a candidate, and may speak thereat. He said, that since the Bill had been drawn they had agreed that, persons who were not parochial electors might be candidates, and the House would clearly not agree that a person should be a candidate and yet should not have the right to attend and speak at a meeting.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite agree with my hon. Friend in this matter, and we propose to deal with it in the Schedule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved, at the end of the clause, to add the words: — (4) Nothing in any Act shall prevent a person, if duly qualified, from being registered in more than one Register of Parochial Electors. (5) Where in that portion of the Parliamentary Register Electors which relates to a parish a person is entered to vote in a polling district other than the district comprising the parish, such person shall be entitled to vote as a parochial elector for that parish, and in addition to an asterisk there shall be placed against his name a number consecutive with the other numbers in the list. (6) Where the Revising Barrister in any list of voters for a parish would—

1. (a) in pursuance of Section 7 of the County Electors Act, 1888, place an asterisk or other mark against the name of any person; or
2. (b) in pursuance of Section 4 of the Registration Act, 1885, erase the name of any person otherwise than by reason of the name appearing more than once in the lists for the same parish; or
3. (c) in pursuance of Section 28 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878,. 41 and 42 Vic. c. 26, as amended by Section 5 of the Registraiion Act, 1885, 48 and 411 Vic. c. 15, plaee against the name of a person a note to the effect that such person is not entitled to vote in respect of the qualification contained in the list,

the Revising Barrister shall, instead of placing that mark or note, or erasing the name, place against the name, if the person is entitled to vote in respect of that entry as a county elector or burgess, a mark signifying that his name should be printed in division three of the list, or if he is entitled to vote only as a parochial elector, a mark signifying that he is entitled to be registered as a parochial elector, and the name so marked shall not be printed in the Parliamentary Register of Electors, but shall be printed, as the case requires, either in division three of the Local Government Register of Electors, or in a separate list of parochial electors. (7) Such separate list shall form part of the Register of Parochial Electors of the parish, and shall be printed at the end of the other lists of electors for the parish, and the names shall be numbered consecutively with the other names on those lists, and the law relating to the Register of Electors shall, with the necessary modifications, apply accordingly, and the lists shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be part of such Register. (8) Any person may claim for the purpose of having his name entered in the parochial electors list, and the law relating to claims to be entered in lists of voters shall apply. (9) The clerk of the County Council or town clerk, as the ease may be, shall, in printing the lists returned to him by the Revising Barrister, do everything that is necessary for carrying into effect the provisions of this section with respect to the persons whose names are marked by the Revising Barrister in pursuance of this section. The right hon. Gentleman said: I should like to tell the Committee how this clause comes to be hero. This is a clause which has been prepared by Sir Henry Jenkins in conference with, and with the concurrence of, the representatives of the Clerks of the Peace and Municipal Corporations and Town Clerks, and I am satisfied upon their high authority, and upon the authority of my advisors, that the clause provides for the various difficulties connected with this matter. It is a purely technical matter, and it is one of those things that has to be drawn by exports who were alone able to understand it. Therefore, I tell the Committee at once who is responsible for it. It has been very carefully considered, and I am advised that it will carry out the intentions of the Government.

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

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, it had occurred to him when he saw these provisions on the Paper this morning that the clause dealing with this matter would be put forward as a new clause at the end of the Bill. His right hon. Friend had not explained. He had said that registration was a technical matter and required to be dealt with by experts. Ho himself had had charge of two Registration Bills in this House, and he had presided over two Committees which considered the subject, and he could not believe that these words which they were now asked to insert would be sufficient to meet the difficulties which the hon. Member for Sunderland raised on Friday, and he himself raised yesterday. The clause would postpone entirely all chance of bringing the Act into operation till March or April, 1895. They had never for a moment been led by the Government to believe that it was intended to postpone the whole operation of the Act for 16 mouths. That was the proposal now made to the Committee without one word of explanation, but his right hon. Friend seemed to think that that would not be the case. With regard to the machinery that was proposed, if the operation of the Bill was to be postponed, the work that was to be done would rest upon the practice of "starring" the Registers, which was one of the greatest inconveniences in voting in this country that had ever existed. It appeared to be nobody's business to properly correct the "starring" of the lists, and he had constantly found in parish after parish hundreds of persons disfranchised by the star being placed on the wrong name. This clause proposed to greatly extend the practice of "starring" beyond the extent to which it had occurred at present, and he therefore thought the words objectionable. How his right hon. Friend could possibly imagine that this Bill could come into operation before April, 1895, he could not, for the life of him, understand.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that that would be the undoubted effect of the clause. There was no doubt in his mind that it would be impossible to bring the Act into operation with any justice unless new Registers were formed throughout the rural districts, and he could not see how new Registers could be formed satisfactorily, so as to come into operation before next year. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean would propose that there should be supplementary registration; if not, they must rely on the ordi- nary registration, and it would be impossible to bring the Act into operation until next year. A very large number of additional voters would have to be put on. He had the authority of the Clerk of the County of Lancashire for saying that no less than 17,000 new names would have to be put on the rural Registers under these conditions. There was no doubt that great injustice arose from "starring," and unless the lists were carefully watched by the registration agents on both sides, it was impossible to avoid some mistakes being made, which inflicted great injustice. That danger would be immensely increased by the operation of this clause. Besides, the Registers would be still more oomplicated in the future than they were already. If the Bill was to pass now, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity next Session of simplifying these matters in connection with registration.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press for a decision on this clause now, but that he would allow it to stand over until to-morrow, as it clearly required very careful examination.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. H. H. Fowler,)—put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.