§ [THIRTIETH NIGHT.]
§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Sir J. GOLDSMID (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 31 (Register of parochial electors).
§
Amendment proposed,
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 of Electors which relates to a parish a person is entitled to vote in a polling district other than the district comprising the parish, such person shall he 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—
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 he registered as a, parochial elector, and the name so marked shall not be printed in the Parliamentary Register of Electors, but shall he 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 tit the end of the other lists of electors for the parish, and the names shall be numbered consecutively with the other names on those Uses, 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 case m iv be, shall, ill 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."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question again proposed. "That those words be there added."
§ Debate resumed.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge, University)said, he offered his acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board for his courtesy in allowing the Committee a little more time for the consideration of this matter. In dealing with the question the right hon. Gentleman had spoken very much as a First Lord of the Admiralty would speak on a subject of naval policy, referring in express terms to his professional advisers." When the Committee recollected that the right hon. Gentleman had himself brought in a Registration Bill at the beginning of 755 the Session, and had showed himself to be a perfect master of his subject, they would agree that they had a right to look on the right hon. Gentleman as an expert in Registration Law, and to require from him an explanation of the position of the Government. He (Sir J. Gorst) would not detain the Committee by reiterating what was said last night in reference to the obvious fact that if the Bill remained in its present shape there could be no Parish Councils until April, 1895. There could not be a parish meeting nor an election of a Parochial Council until there was a Parish Register, and it was obvious that if this was the final proposal of the Government with reference to registration this Parish Register could not be formed until the Revising Barrister sat in the Autumn of the present year. There was no authority to take the Parish Register out of the Parliamentary and Local Government Board lists, and, therefore, there could not lie an incomplete and imperfect Parish Register until the Revising Barrister had sat at the end of the year 1894. That was stated last night, and had not been denied. If it were now denied, one would be glad to know how the Register could be formed. He could not find in the Bill any provision for the formation of the Prrochial Register in the first instance. Under this clause the Revising Barrister would be able, more or less effectually, to pick out from the Parliamentary Register and the Local Government Register the persons who, in a particular parish by reason of double entry, were not entitled to the Parliamentary or County Council vote in that parish, but would be entitled to vote at parochial electors, but that presupposed that the person so put by the Revising Barrister on the Parish Register was entitled somewhere or other to the Parliamentary vote, and somewhere or other to the County Council vote. But persons who were on neither of those lists might be entitled to vote for the parish, and Sub-section 8 was the only provision in the Bill to enable such persons to get on the parochial electors' list. That sub-section said—
(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.
§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.Nobody can be a parochial elector who is not either a Local Government or a Parliamentary elector.
§ SIR J. GORSTMarried women?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERCertainly not.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, that if the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to say that there would be no person entitled to be a parochial elector who was not also entitled to be a Parliamentary elector or Local Government elector, his objection would fall to the ground. He (Sir J. Gorst) should have thought it would have been a more reasonable thing to have thrown on the Overseer of the parish the duty of preparing the parish electors' list. There was to be such a list. There was no provision requiring the Overseers of the parish to make such a list or to meet objections, for it might be said that the Overseers had put persons amongst parish electors who were not qualified to be such. There was no provision for objection being taken to those persons, and no provision for their names being struck out by the Revising Barrister-He was speaking of the initial stage, and not of the mode in which the names were picked out afterwards by the Revising Barrister, or to the question of boundaries, and he maintained that there would be persons entitled under the Bill to be parish electors who would not be entitled otherwise to vote. He did not see any provision for enabling the names of these persons to be put on the Register.
§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said, that the present system of starring voters led to confusion. He understood from what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said last night that if he had known what confusion it would have led to he never would have introduced the starring system. He (Mr. Jeffreys) knew a ease in his own constituency where several electors who were starred in two places had lost their votes in each. It was well known that only the occupiers had votes for the County Council, and therefore it was necessary that there should be some means of separating those who had qualifications 757 for Parliament and those who hail qualifications for County Councils. He was glad to sec that under the new clause the starring process was apparently to be done away. On the Other hand, a new list altogether would have to he prepared. He supposed it would he difficult to put the voters for the District Councils on the County Voters' List with a star to their names, and he imagined that unless a new list was prepared it would make confusion worse confounded. It was very difficult for any ordinary person to understand the mode in which the lists were now made up. An expert knew the difference between owners' and occupiers' votes, and in the future no doubt they would know those who had a, vote for the District Council and not for Parliament. It appeared to him that the most simple course would he to prepare an entirely new Register, showing those who were entitled to the County Council and those entitled to District Council votes. He should he sorry to burden the ratepayers with the additional expense of a new list, but he should like to know what the preparation of such a list would cost. The Revising Barrister would not he paid more, hilt the actual printing would cost more, and the officials who separated the lists would have to he paid for their work.
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)said, he hoped that he fore they proceeded much further the right hon. Gentleman in charge' of the Bill would see his way to deliver them from the fog in which they all existed at the present time. He (Mr. Storey) had drawn attention to the matter on the 19th clause, and the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he rather exaggerated the position. He had instanced the difficulties of the lists, and the difficulties of the boundaries, and had not often spoken without Inning carefully considered all the points that could arise later. Fearing that he might not be right himself, he had taken the precaution to consult the right, hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, than whom no one knew more on such matters. He (Mr. Storey) had found his views reinforced by the right hon. Baronet's, and he now felt that the difficulty was one which it would require all the ingenuity of the Government and of the Committee to overcome. In dealing with 758 the question of bow best to secure the end in view, he had prepared a little synopsis of the lists and districts. At the present time there were two Registers, the Parliamentary Register and the County Council or Local Government Register, which in boroughs was the Municipal Register, but there was for practical purposes no Parish Register. Parish lists were made out when the registration began by the Overseers, and a few copies were printed for the purpose of being put on the Church and chapel doors, and also for the Registration Courts. When these lists were settled by the Revising Barristers they were sent to the Clerks of the County Council and Town Clerks, who had to cut them up and transmogrify them altogether, in consequence of the variety of boundaries which existed in boroughs and in counties. He would put before the Committee the different cases that might arise. All the difficulty arose because the boundaries were not conterminous. Where a parish—and he would call this No. 1—was wholly within one rural area or Urban Sanitary Authority, and one Parliamentary Division, which occurred in very few cases, the work of making out the Register under the Bill would be comparatively easy. There would be two lists to be dealt with—the Parliamentary list containing occupiers who were males, 40s. freeholders, £5 copyholders, £10 free-bidders, and £50 leaseholders, lodgers, and service voters; and the Local Government list, which in the counties was the County Council List, and in the boroughs was the Municipal List, containing occupiers who were males, and occupiers who were females not being married women. That was the law, and it was plain that not very much difficulty could arise. But take No. 2—where partly in one and partly in another sanitary district, but wholly in one Parliamentary Division, this was what had to he done by somebody: they must divide the Parliamentary Register, which be would call "A," into two parts, and this was in many eases extremely difficult, for two reasons—first, because the owners were alphabetical, and bad to he picked out. and put in the different districts that would exist; and, secondly, becausesometimes part of a street or road was in one 759 Division, and part in another, and it would require considerable labour to bring the parts into one. That was No. 2, but they had No. 3, whore a parish was in one sanitary district, but in two, or it might be three, Parliamentary Divisions. Here they had to deal with Register "B"—the County Council List—and the two or three parts would have to be taken together in order to make up the Register. Then they came to the 4th class. Where a parish was in two sanitary districts and two Parliamentary divisions somebody would have to separate Register "A" into two parts and Register "B" into two parts, and the work might be further complicated by the fact that the Parliamentary divisions were not always co-terminous with the boundaries of the County Councils. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman how he proposed, and how the Bill proposed, to proceed in this matter? There was to be an election in April next. He ventured to suggest, as the right, hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had ventured to suggest, that it was impossible to hold the election in April at all, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, on further consideration, would incline to the same opinion.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERIt will, perhaps, save time if I deal with the actual facts of the case. This Bill was drawn in March, 1893. It contemplated receiving the Royal Assent not later than August, 1893; so that a period of eight or nine months would have elapsed between the time of its passing and the time of its coming into operation. Now the state of facts is altered altogether. We are in January, 1894, and we have not yet reached the clause dealing with the appointed day. The hon. Gentleman, of course, knows perfectly well that the Government have no intention now, whatever was the case when the Bill was drawn, of proposing an election under it in April next.
§ MR. STOREYsaid, his right hon. Friend had exactly anticipated what he was going to say. Nobody blamed his right hon. Friend for the circumstances in which they found themselves, because the Bill was drawn, as all other Bills were drawn, in the expectation that it would become law somewhere about June or 760 July. If the Bill had become law at that time there would have been ample time for all the necessary changes to be made. The blame was not in them, but in their stars, and in the unfortunate circumstances of the time. He assumed now that it was agreed on all hands that these elections should not take place, and could not take place, in April, and he was glad of it. Now, then, how were they to proceed? When was the election to be? The initial difficulty lay in the fact that they had no Parish Register at all. He did not think hon. Members who were not much interested in registration, or who had not had the misfortune for years to be mixed up with its practical operation, realised what this meant. In an ordinary parish the Overseer might have a list for his own purposes, but he would not have much more than that. He did not go to the expense of getting a number of Registers printed, for they had never been needed. In the event of a parish election they would want not only the Registers for the polling booths, but they would naturally want printed Registers for the candidates and their friends for canvassing purposes. Under the circumstances, owing to the practical difficulties in the way of preparing the Register, the conclusion he had come to was that there could not be cither elections of Parish Councils or District Councils under this Bill, under the new conditions, until the new Register had been completed. How would an election lie in Sunderland? The Town Clerk had received the parish lists from all the parishes in Sunderland. He had cut them up into the different wards of the town which were not parishes. The Clerk of the County Council had received all the parish lists from all the parishes in the Administrative County, and he had cut them up also into two classes. The Town Clerk of Sunderland had treated the voters in one way for Parliamentary purposes, and in another way for municipal purposes, and the County Clerk had arranged them for Parliamentary and County Council purposes. Now it was evident that as there were only eight Parliamentary divisions in the County of Durham, and 72 County Council divisions, it was impossible for the Registers to tally. What could be done if they decided not to wait for a 761 new Register? Three things could he done. First of all, the candidates could buy from the County Council the parts of the Register rehiring to their divisions, but in Durham the County Clerk was very economical, and did not print more Registers than were needful, and it would lie difficult to supply the candidate's. But supposing there were sufficient copies, the unfortunate candidates would have to pick out the names all over the Register in order to make parish lists for themselves. They might have an election earlier if the Town Council and County Council consented, through their clerks, to reform their Registers into Divisional Registers on the basis of Parish Registers, which would he a very costly process. He thought, therefore, that they might put away the notion of having Parish or District Council elections until the new Register had been completed.
§ MR. STOREYsaid, that terrible things had to be endured in this question. The villagers in our rural districts had waited many years to get these Parish Councils, and if they had to wait another year they must just consent to do so. Another point he had not mentioned was that the married women who were to he entitled to be on the Register under the new order of things would have to he put upon the Register by some person. By whom? He would not trust the Overseers with this duty, and therefore what they would have to do would be to hold a solemn inquest over the women by the Revising Barrister. They would have to summon the Revising Barristers all over the country to determine how many married women were to be placed upon the Register. All these considerations tended to convince him that they must dismiss the notion not only of an election in April next, but of an election at any time during the continuance of the present Registers. These Registers ceased to take effect for municipal purposes on November I, 1894, and for Parliamentary purposes on January 1, 1895. Accordingly, unless the Government were prepared to go to the enormous expense of making a temporary Register, or unless his right hon. Friend 762 intended to add to his triumphs by carrying a Registration Bill this year—
§ MR. STOREYHis experience of hon. Members opposite was that there was not much which could be "easily done" in the House of Commons at the present time. No doubt the Government might attempt it; but, for his own part, he thought it was impossible for the elections to take place earlier than January 1, 1895, though it was a hard thing for him to have to say it. Therefore, he thought the wisest and most prudent course for the Committee would he to insert, with regard to the District Authorities which already existed either as Urban Authorities or Rural Sanitary Authorities, a, new clause keeping them in power until the date of the new elections in January next, the Parish Council election taking place at the same time. The re-arrangement of boundaries and parishes and the grouping together of parishes and districts must be carried out after full consideration and in concert with the people in the locality. That would necessarily involve many meetings and a considerable expenditure of time. He had always thought that it would have been well if all these questions had been arranged before the introduction of the Bill. The new boundaries would then have been in perfect order, the new districts would have been perfectly formed, the new lists would have corresponded with the districts, and have been at the full command of those who needed them. In this way only could this important measure come into operation with the best effect. Now, as always, he spoke as a warm friend of this Bill, and as one extremely anxious that it should be brought into operation. The Amendment before the Committee was extremely technical, and he did not mind confessing that it was 2 o'clock that morning before he realised everything it meant. But the conclusion he had arrived at was that in the future it would in every particular meet the difficulties that would arise. He should therefore vote for if, but at the same time he should take care to place it before the County Council Clerk and the Town Clerks in his neighbour- 763 hood, so as to ascertain before the Report stage whether it gave all the particulars that were necessary. He thought that when this matter was finally settled they might somehow or other put an end to the ridiculous system of "starring." At present a star on a Register meant either that the man could not vote there because he was on the list to vote somewhere else, or else that he was on the list for local and not for Parliamentary purposes. It was inconvenient that, there should be one sign to indicate two such different things. If this Bill passed, however, there would be a third star for another purpose. He should have thought that the only way of getting over the difficulties that existed would have been to drop the star altogether and to put a simple L for local or P for Parliamentary and some other letter for the third purpose. He knew it was extremely disorderly, but he could not avoid taking this opportunity of saying that all these difficulties and stupidities arose simply because the House would not have the good sense to put an end to all these differential powers, and to give a vote to every man.
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERMy hon. Friend has concluded his very able speech by suggesting a very large addition to this Bill in the shape of an alteration of the Registration Law, and of the abolition of the practice of "starring." He says that the only remedy is to have one Register for all purposes. I do not controvert that position. I think that is an ideal at which every registration reformer should aim, but it is not an ideal which I can promise the Committee will be attempted to be attained by means of this Bill. I think that the difficulties of the Bill would be very much increased if we attempted to make such an addition to its provisions. There seems to be some little confusion as regards two distinct parts of the Bill—namely, its temporary provisions and its registration provisions as to the future. The present Amendment deals, not with anything temporary or with any of the great difficulties which my hon. Friend (Mr. Storey) has pointed out as likely to arise in the course of the present year, but with all future registrations after the passing of the Act. I am very much encouraged to find that in the opinion of my hon. Friend the ex- 764 perts who advise the Government—and I know none who are more competent to deal with this question than they are— have arrived at a wise and correct solution of the difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) said last night that our proposals would very much increase "starring." Well, that was a statement that rather astonished me, but as I do not pretend to be an expert on the question I did not contradict my right hon. Friend. Since last night I have had the opportunity of consulting the experts who understand the question, and I find they are unable to agree with my right hon. Friend. They say, on the contrary, that the effect of this Amendment will be a large decrease of "starring" in the future. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] Because the names will not be starred, but will be taken out and put on a third list. I will not, however, go into the question at the present time. As far as the Government are concerned, they must be guided in a technical matter of that sort by their advisers. We are of opinion that this Amendment will carry out the necessary alterations in the law, and I am glad to hear that so good an authority as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland has arrived at practically the same conclusion as we have on the subject, as far as the future law is concerned. The question, however, on which so much interest has been aroused, is how this Bill is to be brought into force in the first instance? I have already said that the Government did not contemplate bringing the Bill into force until a registration had intervened. They contemplated the passage of the Bill in time to effect the registration of the new voters in the Autumn of last year, although the measure would not have come into force until April in this year. We have now to deal with an altered state of things. Of course, it would have been idle for the Government to have entertained the consideration of the transitory provisions of the Bill until we had some reasonable anticipation in our own minds as to the day on which it would pass. Therefore, the transitory provisions have been placed in the last part of the Bill, as were the transitory provisions of the Local Go- 765 vernment Act of 1888. My bon. Friend says if is impossible to bring the Bill into force on the present Register. I do not for a moment say that he has in any way exaggerated the difficulties—which I have foreseen—of such a proceeding, although on one or two points he is inaccurate. By law, in the rural districts the Parliamentary Register has to he kept in each parish, and each parish is entitled to have a copy of its own Parliamentary Register.
§ MR. STOREYI am aware of that fact, but practically it will he necessary to have a number of Registers.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERYes, but I am told that the rule in the counties is to bind up the Parish Registers, and take them as the County Register. Many of the difficulties my hon. Friend referred to apply to boroughs, but not to the rural districts. Well, the question which the Committee has to face is whether they mean to make temporary arrangements for bringing this Bill into force this year, or whether they prefer to let it stand over until the next election. We shall endeavour to submit to the Committee a temporary scheme. It will be necessarily defective I admit, and it may possibly involve some little additional expense, but certainly I shall not be disposed, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) would be very indisposed, to look at any proposal for a special registration for the purpose of bringing the Act into force this year. That would involve a large expense to the County Authorities on the one hand, and to the Imperial Exchequer on the other. What the Committee has to bear in mind is this—that the parochial elector must he on the Parliamentary Register or on the Local Government Register. At the present time women who are married are disqualified from being placed on the Local Government Register, and we propose to remove that disqualification in this Bill. Again, owners of property on the Parliamentary Register are prevented from voting in respect of more than one property in the same Parliamentary division. The two difficulties, therefore, that you have to confront are that you must make provision for those owners who are starred being placed on the Register in respect of all the parishes 766 in which they are entitled to vote, and that you must deal with the married women. In the towns, and where Poor Law Unions are divided into wards, you will also have to apportion the electors on the Register to each division. I am anxious to see whether this Bill can be brought into operation this year—that is to say, whether we can make such an arrangement as will meet these cases. If we cannot, of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland has pointed out, the Bill cannot, be brought into force until the Register of next year is available. The "appointed day" will not be the 15th of April; the Government have no intention of proposing that. We are at this moment considering, however, whether we cannot submit a temporary scheme, and if we can submit it we will do so. If not, that which had been pointed out by my hon. Friend is inevitable. The Amendment now before the Committee deals with the question of permanent registration, and I have heard nothing to convince me that the scheme which the advisers of the Government have prepared for adapting the existing Law of Registration to the altered state of circumstances that will be involved by the provisions of this Bill is defective. I shall ask the Committee to accept this Amendment as it stands, and I will endeavour before we reach Clause 62 to make some further statement. It is only within the last 72 hours that the Government have been able to form a clear opinion as to the passing of this Bill, and now that we have formed a distinct opinion that the measure will receive the Royal Assent in the present Session, we are better able to balance the two evils of postponing the operations of the Bill till next year, or allowing the first election to take place under conditions that might be provided for by Order in Council or in some other way. These questions are receiving the careful attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby), and before we reach Clause 62 I hope to submit to the Committee our decision one way or the other.
§ SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)said, he must congratulate the Committee on having made considerable progress in knowledge with 767 regard to the views of the Government on this matter. Last night his right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler), whose Amendment only appeared on the Paper yesterday morning, moved it without a single word of explanation, and seemed to think that the matter could be disposed of without a single word of Debate.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERCertainly not.
§ SIR C. W. DILKEsaid that, at all events, when the question was raised on earlier clauses his right hon. Friend had complained that this was done without notice. Nobody could have had the smallest notion till now what was the plan the Government had in their minds for dealing with the question. He was glad that the Government were trying to devise temporary provisions for bringing the Act into force. His right hon. Friend said that the Government did not propose that the 15th of April should be the "appointed day." There should be no particular day appointed, but it should be left to the Councils to select their own day. The 15th of April had been mentioned merely because it was the latest date fixed by law for the elections of Local Boards, and it was also about the date of the Board of Guardian elections. As the Bill stood at present, the earliest possible day for the elections would be the 15th of April, 1895, but unless all the County Councils completed the whole of their arrangements under the Act for every parish before July of the present year, the 15th of April, 1896, would be the earliest date for the elections. His right hon. Friend admitted that the question of temporary arrangements was very difficult, and no doubt he contemplated some provision for bringing the Registers into force for one year without the intervention of the Revising Barrister. He (Sir C. Dilke) was not inclined in all cases to trust Local Authorities with the preparation of the lists without any revision. The Government proposal would have to be discussed when it was made, and no doubt it would be a choice of evils—either a long postponement of the date of the elections or a tax Register. He would not speak of wilful corruption or fraud, although there was such a thing in connection with the preparation of the Registers, but, looking at the terrible 768 carelessness of Local Authorities in many cases, he could not think it would be safe to trust the whole preparation of the Registers for the first election, which would be the most important one, to their hands. One of the great difficulties to be overcome would be the picking out of electors from the general list, and assorting them into wards, an operation in which mistakes sometimes occurred which disfranchised whole parishes. In many districts there would be three sets of wards to deal with—one for Parliamentary voters, one for Sanitary Authorities, and the third for Poor Law Guardians. When the new wards had been created there would have to be some authority charged with the duty of picking out the service and lodger voters, and making a new Register. The Loudon freeholders would also have to be dealt with. Those who voted for the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Temple) would have to be taken out of the Surrey Registers and sprinkled over all the parishes in South London. In the same way thousands of voters would have to be taken out of the Ealing Division and registered for parishes in West London and from the Tottenham Division, and sorted over the North Loudon parishes. He was sure that the Committee would never trust such a power to any Local Authority without a revision. If the Government wished to do this he was certain that they must make up their minds at once that a fresh revision should take place. In 1888 a special County Electors1 Registration Bill preceded the passing of the Local Government Bill, and either a similar measure would have to be passed now, or special clauses would have to be put into this Bill. The cases of boundaries and wards covered over an enormous number of separate classes of difficulties. The particular Amendment before the Committee met not the temporary difficulty but the permanent difficulty of registration. His right hon. Friend said that the Amendment would not lead to an increase of "starring," but its first two lines showed that it would do so. A friend of his had no fewer than 12 parochial freehold qualifications in the division he represented. At present he was struck off the Register altogether, but under the Bill he would be entitled to be on the 769 Register 12 times, and would be starred 11 times.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERNo; he will be put in list No. 3.
§ SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir J. Gorst) had been informed some time ago that parochial electors must be either Parliamentary or County Council electors, but the words of the Amendment distinctly pointed to the existence of a class of persons who were no doubt potential Parliamentary electors, but were not actually Parliamentary electors, and they would form a division by themselves. He might remark, in passing, that it was rather curious that the Liberal Party, which was pledged to "One Man One Vote," must incur all these difficulties in order to make a, fresh Register for these non-resident freeholders whom they had promised next year to knock off the Register. He would only say that an enormous complication was introduced by having a wholly different Register for urban and for rural districts, for county purposes, and for parochial purposes. The second paragraph of the Amendment ran—
Where in that portion of the Parliamentary Register of electors which relates to a parish a person is entitled to vote in a polling district other than the district comprising the parish, such person shall lie entitled to vote as a parochial elector fur that parish, and in addition to an asterisk I here shall he placed against his name a number consecutive with the other numbers in the list.Let the Committee consider the practical difficulty of even that suggestion. The result of the arrangement would be that, although printed on the Register as entitled to vote in parish B, a large number of persons would have to vote in parish B for parochial purposes and in parish A in every Parliamentary election. These persons would be printed on the Register its entitled to vote at B, but as a matter of fact they would have to vote at A for Parliamentary purposes. These were practical difficulties in the way of carrying the Bill into operation. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland had said it would be possible to distinguish the different votes by letters rather than by stars. He believed the same difficulty would exist with regard to letters. There would be the same risk of disfranchisement in hundreds 770 of cases owing to the carelessness of the Local Authorities. Hundreds of persons were already disfranchised by stars being placed against their names, and this clause would increase that disfranchising process. The system of starring and lettering was, in fact, a fertile source of confusion. The real difficulty which the Government would have to face with regard to putting the Bill immediately into force, was that the County Councils had under the Bill a great many things to do. They had to bring all the wards together, new parishes would be created, and how was the Act to take effect until the counties lead had time to perform these and other duties laid upon them?
§ * MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)said, that if they were not all feeling the calm which had settled down upon the discussions the Opposition would be only human if they pressed home the extraordinary position in which the Government found themselves placed—a position which the Opposition had frequently indicated in the course of the Debates. After what had occurred he did not want to make too much out of the difficulty, but they had been grinding very hard at the Bill for weeks, and now for the first time the Government confessed that a temporary arrangement was necessary, subject to none of the checks upon which Parliament had hitherto insisted, in order to enable a new Parliamentary list to be prepared. The result, of course, would be that the Bill could not possibly come into operation for many months to come. As he had said, he did not want to make any Party or political capital out of this most remarkable situation; but he would just say that had the Government taken advantage of the opportunities afforded by the Opposition and by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during the discussion of previous clauses, and realised, what had become patent to many of them, that there were practical difficulties in the way of bringing the Bill into force so soon, they would have saved more than one Debate and a considerable amount of time. Every word said by the hon. Member for Sunderland and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean its to the urban districts applied with double force to the rural districts. In those districts there were a great many 771 people who did not vote in the district, in which they were qualified us owners. Therefore, qualification might lie in some out-of-the-way parish, which was difficult of access, and the practice had been to put those voters on the Register of some place or area in which it was more convenient to them to vote owing to the better train accommodation. Under the proposal of the Government all these voters would have to he extracted from those places, and it would he almost impossible therefore for the Register to be properly prepared. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the same difficulties had confronted the Conservative Government in 1888, and that they had been met by putting some transitory clauses into the Local Government Bill of that year. But these clauses were totally different in character and object to the clauses it was proposed to put into this Bill. The difficulties with regard to areas and Registers were met in 1888 by a Bill appointing a Royal Commission to deal with areas, and by the County Electorate Act. On the matter of areas, he would say that it would also be impossible to consult the wishes of the people themselves in the various localities in the time at their disposal, if the Bill was to come into force at the earliest before 1895. The President of the Local Government Board said it was originally intended that the Bill should be considered in the early part of 1893, but no one except the Government was to blame that the Bill was I not taken at that time. The Opposition invited the Government to alter their programme and to consider the Bill early in the year, but they refused. Their scheme had now gone astray, and they appealed to the Opposition to assist them in setting it straight by agreeing to a temporary arrangement. If they adopted that arrangement, the Government, would have to make up their minds to spend money; they would have to put their hands into other people's pockets, and he was sure they would find those pockets particularly empty just now. But when people wanted luxuries they must be prepared to spend money; and as it was said that the country was hungering for a Parish Councils Bill, the only thing that could be done was to make a temporary provision and have a special list of Revising 772 Barristers. His advice was, however, that the Government should prepare a separate Bill embodying this temporary arrangement. It need not contain more than three or four clauses, and although he had not had any opportunity of consulting the Leaders of the Party with which he acted, there was no reason why such a Bill should be of a contentious character, and if the difficulty were met in that way he was sure there would be no desire to offer any factious opposition. The Government even now hardly seemed to realise some of the difficulties with which they were face to face. It would be impossible for them to fix a time in which the Bill should come into operation. The Opposition had no desire to take advantage of the opportunity which the Government had given them of exposing the nakedness of the land into which the Government had invited the people to enter; but they did feel that it was a mere waste of time to consider the provisions of a measure until there was a reasonable prospect of its coming into force at an early date.
§ COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)said, the proposal before the Committee was a new Registration Bill, very complex and difficult to understand. It was also an Enfranchisement Bill, because it enabled the 40s. freeholders of the counties to vote for parochial purposes, a privilege which they had never enjoyed before. He did not know whether the Liberal Government had that intention in introducing these proposals, but undoubtedly the proposals would have that effect. In his own constituency some of the county voters would be starred to vote in Greenwich for Parliamentary purposes, and in Woolwich, where their property was situate, for municipal purposes. Woolwich was not yet divided into wards, and that, division would have to be made under an Order of the Local Government Board. It was impossible, therefore, that everything could be in working order for an election before 1895, and that brought him to the puzzling inquiry, why they were sitting there at this time in order to pass an Act which would not come into operation until 1895? He concurred in the suggestion that the question of registration should be dealt with in a separate Bill, because he could not conceive how a temporary provision 773 would meet the case. With regard to the introduction of the 40s. freeholders of counties—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! This is not an enfranchising clause. Ii is merely a registration provision.
§ COLONEL HUGHESsaid, the subsection which he referred to was one which said that county freeholders might vote for municipal purposes. If county freeholders got municipal votes, why should not married women, who were freeholders, have Parliamentary and municipal votes also?
THE CHAIRMANI have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that this is a registration provision. It has nothing to do with the franchise;, beyond the purposes of registration.
§ COLONEL HUGHESsaid that, to his mind, Sub-section 2 providing that county freeholders might vote for municipal purposes gave freeholders an additional vote, lint he would not pursue the matter further.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)said, he considered that nothing would he gained by a postponement of this Amendment, which he thought was a fair way of meeting the difficulties of the case. The dilemma in which they were placed had been clear to many of them for weeks. It was now clear, on the admission of the President of the Local Government Board, that if they did not put off the elections until next year they must have a Register compiled in a temporary and, as he said, an imperfect manner, the Overseers acting without control or revision. Such a proceeding would he satisfactory to no one, and thousands of men in the country districts would be left off the Register for the first elections to the new Councils. Surely, everyone must realise that great injustice would be done to these men if they were left off the Register for the first elections. The first elections of the Parish Councils would be most important, and yet, according to these proposals of the Government, thousands of owners and occupiers who had a substantial interest in different parishes, some of them owning all the land in a parish, would have no voice in the first elections for some of the parishes, and through the adoption of the adoptive Acts might have to submit for years to the taxation 774 imposed by the first Parish Councils He did not think that any Party would consent to such an injustice, especially after consenting to the anomaly of allowing freeholders a voice in the elections of Parish Councils. The hon. Member for West Derby seemed to think it would he easy to set the matter right by a separate Bill—
§ MR. W. LONGI did not say it would be easy. I think it would he a very difficult matter; but I prefer a separate Bill as the mode of dealing with it.
THE CHAIRMANI must say that, while the hon. Member for West Derby was justified under the circumstances in answering the Minister, this matter cannot go further, as it has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that in consequence of the ruling of the Chairman he would conclude his observations.
§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)said, the mere fact that this Amendment was required was a strange commentary upon the careless way in which the Bill had been drawn. They had the further fact that it would not now be possible to have the elections before 1895, or indeed perhaps not before 1896, for, as the hon. Member for Sunderland had pointed out, this additional difficulty might arise—that while some of the County Councils might get through the work in 1895, others might not get through it till 1896, with the result that in some parts of the country there would be Parish Councils in 1895, but not in other parts till 1896. The Government bad no right whatever to spring such Amendments upon the Committee suddenly.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that all he had stated was that he would consider whether it would be possible to make a proposition. He never made any suggestion whatever. There must he some transitory provision now, whether the clause was passed or not.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid, his point was that if they were to have transitory provisions they ought to know them at once. He agreed with the objection which had been made to their being brought into this Bill at all; they ought to be in a separate Bill; but, at any rate, the Committee had a perfect right to 775 insist that they should not be sprung upon them suddenly at the last moment.
§ MR. JEFFREYS (Hants, Basingstoke)said, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten to answer his question as to why there should not be a Parish Register by itself? [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: The cost.] At the present moment they had a Parliamentary Register and a County Council Register, and now they were to have a third Register made up of the two, with the addition of married women, and he held that unless this was done by a, separate Register it would be a very complicated affair, and difficult to understand. Undoubtedly it would cost a little more, but this was not entirely a question of cost?
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)said, the hon. Member for Preston had misrepresented the view he had taken. He was clearly of opinion that it would be easy to advance the period, and make the Parliamentary Register come into force on the 1st of November, in the same way as the Municipal and County Council Register, and in that case the elections could take place before this year ended. Then if, in addition to that, the present District Councils—Local Boards, Rural Sanitary Authorities, and Guardians—were continued by a clause until the new elections took place, much of the difficulty would be in that way obviated.
§ MR. GODSON (Kidderminster)put it to the Government whether the comparatively small sum of money necessary for the purpose of preparing Parish Registers would not be willingly granted by all Parties in the House?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)said, he could not see that the preparation of separate parish lists of 400 or 500 people would be a very expensive matter. One copy would suffice, and candidates could easily get copies printed at their own cost.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI think it would be a very expensive thing, and nothing would be gained by it. When the registration is properly carried out, the parish lists in subsequent years will be as simple a matter as possible.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, he felt bound to remark that if any proposals of the kind suggested by the Member for Sunderland were going to be carried out by the Government, they would practically in- 776 volve two more Acts of Parliament, and a departure from established practice.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 32 (Supplemental provisions as to parish meetings).
* MR. J. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)moved—
In page 19, line 28, at end, to insert,—" (2.) Not less than seven days' notice of a parish meeting shall be given, and the notice thereof shall be affixed to every place of worship, and to every post office, in the parish.He said that the Bill made no provision for notices of parish meetings, and though the President of the Local Government Board proposed to extend Clause 38 so as to include them, he also proposed to adopt the existing law relating to notices of Vestry meetings. That law was objectionable on two grounds. First, it required only three clear days' notice of a meeting, and that I would be too short for preparation for a parish meeting: especially in a large parish. He therefore proposed that there should be not less than seven days' notice. Next, whereas notices relating to the registration of electors had to be affixed to all places of worship, the law required only that notices of Vestry meetings should be affixed to the doors of the parish church and district churches. The theory, no doubt, was that everybody went to their parish church, which was now notoriously not the case. It was also the fact that large numbers of people, unhappily, refrained from attending any place of worship. There were also others who never looked at public notices at such places; and in some eases the notices were inaccessible during the week. He proposed to assimilate the law to that relating to registration notices; so as to include all places of worship, and to add some public place which was generally resorted to. There was no doubt a difficulty in finding such a place in country parishes; the poorhouse being too far off, there being no police station, and the schools being frequented only by children. Therefore, he suggested the Post Office, which was, perhaps, the most frequented place in a village; but subject, of course, to such regulations as would prevent inconvenience to the 777 Postal Service. If his proposals were adopted he should propose an Amendment on Clause 38, which would make the law uniform in regard to both parish meetings and County Council notices. He begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 19, line 28, at end to insert—"(2.) Not less than seven days' notice of a parish meeting shall be given, and the notice thereof shall be affixed to every place of worship, and to every Post Office in the parish."—(Mr. carvell Williams.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he rather thought this was an attempt—no doubt made unwittingly—to forestall the discussion of Clause 38, which was the clause that dealt with these notices. This Amendment was, therefore, he thought, out of Order in the present clause.
* THE CHAIRMANThat point escaped my notice for the moment. I think this Amendment is out of Order in the present clause.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSClause 38 relates only to District Council notices, and not at all to parish meetings.
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, perhaps he might save the time of the Committee if he replied to the hon. Member at once. The Government did not propose to accept the Amendment, and they said that on Clause 38 the point was raised. It was perfectly true that, technically, Clause 38 did not refer to parish meetings, but if the hon. Member would look at his (Mr. Fowler's) Amendment he would see that the notice was extended to a parish meeting. What they proposed was that they should add to the clause, when the time came, words to the effect that this notice should be posted in a conspicuous place in the parish, or in such other manner as the Parish Council or persons convening the meeting might desire. That appeared to the Government to leave the matter to the Local Authority.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMSThat partly meets my point, but not wholly. The right hon. Gentleman has not, said whether he is prepared to assimilate the 778 law regarding notices under this Bill to the law relating to registration notices, which have to be posted on all places of worship.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI will state my views on Clause 38. It is clearly out of Order here.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HANBURYmoved—
In page 19, line 33, to leave out the words "In a parish not having a Parish Council.He said, he moved this Amendment for two reasons. One was to simplify the Bill, and the other was to give the people in the parishes more control over the parish meeting than they had at present. Under Sub-section 3 of this clause, unless by going through a complicated set of arrangements, nobody had the power to call a parish meeting together but the Chairman of the Parish Council or any two Parish Councillors. He thought the constituents of these Councillors ought to have the right of calling a parish meeting and controlling them from week to week, or even from day to day if they liked. Unless, however, they went through the arrangement suggested in Sub-section 4, they had no power to call a parish meeting and keep their own Councillors in check during their year of office. Therefore, he suggested that either the Chairman of the Parish Council, or two Parish Councillors, or the Chairman of the Parish Meeting, or any six parochial electors, should have power to summon a parish meeting without going through any other formality. They had the same power with regard to the Vestry. He thought the Liberal Party would find in the country that great complaints were arising as to the Bill, instead of conferring power on the people, really taking it out of their hands and placing men over them as to whom they would have no control. It was, therefore, to the interest of the Government and the Liberal Party to accept this suggestion. It was all very well to say the parish might meet and discuss the conduct of their representatives, as in the case of Members of Parliament, but in a good many villages there was no place where they could meet. It was 779 only when they met officially as the parish meeting that they had the right to the schoolroom or place of public meeting. He thought that the complicated procedure proposed in Sub-section 4 was unnecessary and undesirable, and might lead to a deal of confusion. For instance, take one-tenth of the parochial electors. Did it mean those actually on the Register? There might be doubt as to what constituted one-tenth. Then they were to "request." Was that to be verbal or written? There were other matters which might lead to difficulties, and he contended that the sub-section might with advantage be omitted. He begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 19, line 33, to leave out "In a parish not having a Parish Council."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)said, that in a town the Mayor, upon the requisition of a reasonable number of electors, might at any time summon a town's meeting. He thought the simplest plan would have been to leave that power with the Chairman of the Parish Council, and the Chairman of the Parish Meeting where there was no Parish Council, on the requisition of a reasonable number of electors.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)said, this was perhaps not a very important Amendment; still, he thought it would simplify the hill, because it would render Section 4 unnecessary, and he thought this power might reasonably be given to the people of the parish.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, this was not a very important question. He did not, of course, admit that this was putting the Parish Council in the position of masters over the people, as the hon. Member for Preston seemed to think. The Parish Councillors were the representatives of the ratepayers, and would discharge their duty as such. He was quite willing to run the electioneering risk the hon. Member threatened them with on this point. The theory of the Government was that the Chairman of the Parish Council or any two Councillors, or in a parish not 780 having a Parish Council, the chairman of the parish meeting might at any time summon a meeting. There were certain meetings which must be summoned, and the parish meeting was to meet four times a year. That included a pretty frequent parish meeting, and then they made this further provision as to one-tenth of the electors requisitioning a meeting, and six of them being able to call a meeting in the event of the chairman or two of the members of the Parish Council refusing to convene a meeting. There was this distinction between a town's meeting and a meeting under this hill—that the former had no administrative character, whilst the latter had. On the whole, he was inclined to accept the Amendment, as he thought it might simplify things to omit the sub-section.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Sub-section 4 omitted.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the hill.
§ Clause 33 (Disqualifications for Parish or District Councils).
§
On Motion of Major DARWIN, the following Amendments were agreed to:—.
In page 20, line 12. to leave out the words "whilst a member," and insert the words "since his election.
In line 14, to leave out the words "whilst a member." and insert the words "since his election.
§
On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLOR, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
In line 26, to leave out from the word "board," to the cud of line 28.
§
On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
In line 34, at end. to insert the words "in any contract with the Council for the supply from land, of which he is owner or occupier, of stone, gravel, or other materials for making or repairing highways or bridges: or.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)moved to leave out the following words from Sub-section 1 (c):—
But lie shall not vote at any meeting of the Council or Board on any question in which such company are interested.If such a person were to be a member of the Board, it was absurd that he should 781 not vote. Either lie should be disqualified absolutely—which he confessed he should be—or if allowed to he on the Board, it would be very inconvenient that he should be an incomplete member.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out the following words from Subsection 1 (c):— "but he shall not vote at any meeting of the Council or Board on any question in which, such company are interested."— (Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Mr. H. H. FOWLERsaid, a member was to be disqualified from voting on any question in which his own company was interested. That was following the universal practice, and if the hon. Member was connected with a Gas Company and was also a member of a, Town Council, he would not be allowed to vote on any question relating to the supply of gas in which his company might have an interest.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
MR. GIBSON BOWLESmoved—
In page 21, Section 2, line 1. after "Councillor," to insert the words "or District Councillor or Guardian.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEconsidered that this was a, dangerous and invidious power to give to the Parish Councils. The only case in which its exercise might be necessary was in a small parish where the number of eligible men was small.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, no such dispensing power existed at the present time, and it would be a dangerous thing to introduce it into the Parish Councils.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, it was a lather dangerous power to give to anybody, but if it were given at all it should be given not to the District Council, but to the higher power—the County Council.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERWe intend to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division, giving the dispensing power to the County Council.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 21, line 5, to leave out the word "district," and insert the word "county."—(Commander Bethell.)
§ Question, "That the word 'district' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'county' be there inserted."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that this power ought to be exercised by the County Council in the cases of districts as well as parishes.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 21, after line 13, to insert the words—"If a member of a Council of a parish, or of a district other than a borough, or of a Board of Guardians is absent from meetings of the Council or Board for more than six months consecutively, except in ease of illness or for some reason approved by the Council or Board, his office shall on the expiration of those months become vacant.
Where a member of a Council or Board of Guardians by virtue of this section is disqualified for holding office, or vacates his seat for absence, the Council or Board shall forthwith declare the office to be vacant, and signify the same by notice signed by three members and countersigned by the clerk of the Council or board, and notified in such manner as the Councilor Board direct, and the office shall thereupon become vacant."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. H. H. HOBHOUSEasked whether there would be any disqualification under this clause against officers of District Councils, such as Workhouse Chaplains and Medical Officers of Health, serving on the Parish Councils? He did not think there would be; but he desired to have an authoritative statement on the matter.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERIt is quite clear that there would be no such disqualification.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 34 (Supplemental provisions as to Parish Councils).
783§ MR. HANBURYmoved to omit Subsection (1). He said, he did not, know what precedents there were for this rather unusual course—namely, that when there had been an election and only three out of five had been elected, two old members should continue in office. It seemed to him a thoroughly bad principle. Again, where the numbers were equal or no poll taken the choice was to be made by the parish meeting, or, in default, by the Chairman of the Council. If the parish had not taken the trouble to elect members of the Council they would not take the trouble to decide which of the old members were to be carried on through the following year. Therefore the choice would be left in the hands of the chairman, and that was a power of co-option which the Chairman ought not to have.
§ Amendment proposed, "To leave out Sub-section (1)."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That Subsection (1) stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there was a precedent in the Education Act with reference to the election of School Boards. The sub-section was put in simply to avoid the necessity of a new election, whenever there was a failure to elect the full number of Councillors. The parish could not be left without a Council, and therefore it was provided that in these cases, which he was sure would very rarely occur, the vacancies should be filled up by the retiring Councillors.
§ SIR R. TEMPLEAre these the same words as in the Education Act?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI believe they are substantially.
§ MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)said, he know an instance of a School Board election at which only one member was returned, who at once constituted himself chairman and co-opted all the other members.
§ MR. BARTLEYsaid, that if the parish meeting did not care enough about the matter to elect a Council, the best plan was to leave it alone. At any rate, it was not, right to give this power to the chairman to go beyond the parish meeting and elect a Parish Council himself.
§ MR. STOREYconsidered that this was a very convenient rule, as without it a parish might be left without a Council wholly or partially. Then the precedent of the School Board was not the only precedent, for, unless he was greatly mistaken, under the Municipal Corporations Act, if no one was nominated, the outgoing Councillor continued as the representative of the ward.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that the clause amounted to an absolute negation of the principle of popular suffrage. Surely if an election had not been complete, the right method to adopt was that adopted in the case of an election to the House. The election should be quashed and a new one held.
§ SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he could not see any objection to the proposal of the Government. The case would seldom arise, but when it did arise there should be some machinery for meeting it. The hon. Member for Preston had not proposed any alternative to the suggestion contained in the clause.
§ MR. HANBURYsaid, no alternative plan was necessary, because if the Parish Council was not elected they had the parish meeting to fall back upon, whereas in the case of the School Board there was nothing to fall back upon in case no Board was elected. If the people refused to elect a Parish Council it would show that they were perfectly content with the parish meeting, and they ought, to be allowed to make their own choice in the matter.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERWe cannot go back on controversies which have already been decided. We prefer the Parish Council to the parish meeting, and it is necessary to provide for all possible contingencies.
§ MR. GODSON (Kidderminster)said, that the Chairman of the Parish Council was given power to fill up these vacancies in the Council, but how could there he a chairman until the Parish Council was first elected?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThe Chairman holds office until his successor is appointed.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, that according to the Bill the parishes with the necessary number of inhabitants were saddled with Parish Councils for ever. He thought there ought to be some mode by 785 which a parish could get rid of a Council if experience showed that its affairs could be better managed by a parish meeting.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
On Motion of Commander BETHELL, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
In page 21, line 20, after the word "shall," to insert the words "with their consent.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part, of the Bill."
§ Major DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)said, that as the clause would apply to grouped parishes, he wished to draw attention to a ease which, though it would not often arise, was worth) of consideration. In the ease of a small parish grouped to a large parish, the small parish would have only one Councillor, in the event of a vacancy in the small parish, it would be filled up by the Council of the other parish, and therefore the small parish would be governed by a. Council on which it would have no elected representative whatever. It would be rather a strong order if a parish had a separate rate imposed on it by a body on which it had no representative, and, therefore, perhaps the President of the Local Government Board would consider whether the point could not be met in some way.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 35 (Provisions as to elections).
* THE CHAIRMANAs the President of the Local Government Board proposes to omit this clause, I will, with the consent of the Committee, put the Question, "That this clause stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. STOREYasked when the right hon. Gentleman would be able to put on the Paper the substituted clause, and the clause dealing with married women? Considering the pace at which the Committee were now getting through the Bill, if those clauses were not put on the Paper immediately, there would be very little time available to examine them.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he hoped to put some of the clauses on the Paper that night, but, at all events, all of them would be put down on the morrow.
§ MR. BARTLEYAnd the compromise as well?
§ SIR R. TEMPLEasked what was the reason of the omission or postponement of this clause, to which he had several Amendments down on the Paper? Surely the Committee were entitled to know what the Government intended to do in the matter.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the clause was being omitted in order to bring up at a later stage a new clause embodying those Amendments on the Paper which the Government had accepted. That course was more convenient than to attempt to embody in the clause in Committee all the Amendments from hon. Members on both sides of the House, which the Government agreed with.
§ SIR H. TEMPLEsaid, he hoped the Committee would see that he was quite right in drawing from the Minister in charge of the Bill the important explanation given, and which might very well have been given at first.
§ Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Clause 36 (Provision as to parish meeting for part of parish), agreed to, and-added to the Bill.
§ Clause 37 (Provision in case of failure to appoint Overseers).
§ SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he should again ask why it was proposed to omit this clause?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThe reason is precisely the same as in the last ease. The clause will want redrawing in order to meet the altered circumstances.
§ COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)Would it not be better to let the duties of Overseers he transacted by the Local Authorities?
§ SIR C. W. DILKEIt is so.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Clause 38 (Public notices).
§
On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
In page 23, line 35, after the word "Act." to insert the words "and a public notice of a parish meeting.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 23, line 36, after the words "Vestry meetings," to insert the words "and by posting
787
the notice in some conspicuous place or places within the parish.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the place for displaying the notices for Vestry meetings was perfectly well known—namely, the church door or some place appertaining thereto. What was a conspicuous place? Was a lamppost a conspicuous place? He noticed that in London notices in small type were posted on lamp-posts. If a similar system was to be adopted under this clause the notices might just as well not be posted at all, because no one could read them.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERWe all know the mode of giving notice of Vestry meetings now, but I am afraid it is too true that a large number of people do not always attend places of worship on Sunday, and, therefore, many might not see the notice. We think it better, therefore, to use the words "some conspicuous place or places." I think that probably the best place would be outside the Lost Office, but surely we may leave the Parish Council to settle that matter for itself.
§ MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)It is fair to make the observation that that is exactly what the Government are not doing.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERWe do not agree.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
In page 23, line 37, after the word "Council," to insert the words "or persons convening the eeting.
§ Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 39 (Supplemental provisions as to transfer of powers).
§
On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
In page 23, line 38, leave out "All powers exerciseable," and insert "Any power which may be exercised and any consent which may be given.
Line 39, after "parish." insert "or by the majority of them.
Line 39, after "poor," insert "or under the 'School Sites Acts' or 'The Literary and Scientific Institutions Act, 1854.'
788
Line 42, after "exercised," insert "or given.
Page 24, line 11, leave out from "shall," to end of sub-section, and insert "affect any rights, powers, or duties of the Churchwardens and Overseers or the Parish Council, in cases where they have active powers of management.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 40 (Supplemental provisions as to adoptive Acts), agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 41 (Effect on Parish Councils of constitution of urban district).
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 25, line 28, after the word "parishes," to insert the words "or otherwise for the government of the parish or part."— (Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. HANBURYWhat is the effect of that Amendment?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERAs the clause was originally framed it was provided that there should be a Parish Council for every rural parish. That, as the hon. Member knows, has now been altered, and it is therefore necessary to provide for the government of the parish by a parish meeting without a, Parish Council.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 42 (Power to change names of district or parish) agreed to, and added to the Bill.
§ Clause 43 (Committees of Parish or District Councils).
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he wished to amend line 20 of the clause, so as to make it read —
And in the case of Parish Councils the acts of every such committee shall be submitted to the Council for their approval.He did not sec any reason why District Councils should not have the power, in cases where they saw fit, to appoint executive committees. In parishes the theory of the Government was that if executive authorities were wanted Parish Councils ought to be appointed. In districts, however, the case was different. 789 There they bad bodies brought together at great inconvenience, the members living considerable distances away from each other, and in such cases it might be desirable that they should have power to appoint executive committees just as in the case of County Councils under the Highway Acts. There might be a certain piece of road to be looked after, or there might be the condition of a bridge to be inquired into, and it was often found most convenient to appoint a small executive committee to settle the question. That would be the case with all the functions of the District Councils, and he wanted to call attention to what took place under the Public Health Act of 1875. In Section 201 of that Act there was authority for delegating all these powers to a committee consisting wholly of their own members. That was a much wider power than he proposed, his proposition being the special delegation of particular business. In the case of highway matters it would be absolutely necessary to have an executive committee, and the same would be desirable in connection with many other matters. The power already existed in the case of County Councils in connection with every subject but the making of a rate or the borrowing of money, and if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board chose to accept the Amendment with that exception he could put in a saving at the end providing that—Nothing in this section shall authorise a Council to delegate to a committee any power of making a rate or of borrowing any money.That would save the financial powers of the Council itself, while it would leave them at liberty to delegate administrative powers to committees of their own members. He could not see any objection to this proposal.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 26, line 20, after the word "and," to insert the words "in the ease of Parish Council."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words he there inserted."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that this would be a very serious limitation in the clause if the Committee accepted the proposal. The theory hitherto had been that the Elective Body who delegated 790 their functions to committees should have control over those committees. He remembered a long discussion taking place in the House in 1888 on the position of the County Councils, and it was settled that every committee should report its proceedings to the Council if the Council so required. But the Councils they were now discussing were not on the same level as County Councils. They were more like Urban Authorities. He could conceive cases where the power would not work prejudicially, but this Amendment was to extend to all District Councils this power of delegating their functions to Committees. He could not accept the Amendment as it was proposed without trenching upon the principle involved in the clause. He would, however, make to the hon. Member a concession in respect of the Highway Act. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that no doubt there wore cases in which it was convenient to make committees practically independent of the body delegating them. Still, if the power were given in this clause it might lead to serious consequences. The result, for instance, might be to make the District Councils secondary bodies, losing their power and influence. The principle of a committee being' directly responsible to the body delegating it was too valuable to be parted with in the case of District Councils. Although there might be conveniences attached to the proposed alteration, he was afraid they were conveniences which might lead to a great deal of lax administration and expense. On the whole, he did not think the proposition a good one.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he hoped the hon. Member opposite would not press the Amendment, seeing that all through the Bill the Opposition had contended for keeping in the hands of the Local Authorities as much of their original power as possible. He thought it would be too wide an extension of a small principle which undoubtedly did find a place in our local government.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he was sorry the principle of his Amendment did not find favour with the Government. Under his proposal the position of these committees would not be one of inde- 791 pendence, and he thought the Councils might well be trusted to give the committees proper instructions. The committees would have to report. The President of the Local Government Board took municipal instances; but in towns people lived close together, and it was convenient for Councils to meet frequently. The conditions were very different in scattered country districts. It would be difficult for the Councils to meet frequently; therefore, he thought it desirable that there should be power to appoint these executive committees, as was done in the case of County Councils. However, the right hon. Gentleman had given him the greater part of what he wanted—namely, the Highway Acts. He (Mr. Hobhouse) thought the right hon. Gentleman might go farther; but as he did not, he would accept with gratitude the concession he had made.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
In page 20, line 23, after the word "Acts," to insert the words "or Highway Acts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 26, line 36, at end of Clause, insert—"(4) This section shall not apply to the Council of a borough."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. HANBURYasked if there was any special reason for this Amendment?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, Councils of boroughs were regulated by separate statute, and the object of the Government right through had been to steer clear of Municipal Corporations if they could.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause 14 (Joint Committees).
§
On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
Page 26, line 40, leave out "delegating," and insert "conferring.
Line 41, leave out "to," and insert "on.
Line 42, leave out "may exercise," and insert "might exercise if the purpose related exclusively to their own parish or district.
Page 27, line 8, after "upon," insert "or as may be determined in ease of difference by the County Council.
§
On Motion of Mr. JESSE COLLINGS, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
Page 27, line 13, at end, add "at the time of the appointment of such committee.
§ Clause, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 45 (Audit of accounts of District and Parish Councils and inspection).
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he wished to move an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tyneside (Mr. J. A. Pease), to omit from Sub-section (1) the words "half-yearly to the 29th day of September and," with the object of substituting the words "yearly to." He thought that a bi-annual making up of these accounts was unnecessary. It would entail a considerable amount of work on what, after all, would only be an honorary position—that of treasurer. But he (Commander Bethell) objected to the half-yearly audit even more than to the half-yearly making up of accounts.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 27, line 16, to leave out the words "half-yearly to the twenty-ninth day of September, and," and insert "yearly to."—(Commander Bethell.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ [Sir J. GOLDSMID here relieved Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.]
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThis is simply a question of administrative propriety, on which the Committee was quite competent to form an opinion. I will, therefore, content myself with simply stating the facts. I quite agree with the hon. Member opposite that a half-yearly audit may entail some extra work to the officials, but the real question is whether it will not give some additional security. My own impression is that if local government is to be safely carried out in the future the auditing of the accounts must not be procrastinated so much as it has hitherto been. We have already done something to ensure a more rapid audit, and with regard to the county audits we have put on a considerable amount of additional assistance in order to bring the audits up to date. At pre- 793 sent the accounts of the Guardians and of the Rural Sanitary Authorities are made up every half year; indeed, a large proportion of the authorities with which this Bill deals have their accounts made up every six months. On the other hand, Local Board and urban district accounts are made up yearly. Personally, I think it would, hearing in mind the present state of the law, be convenient that the accounts of the new District Councils should he audited half-yearly. There is this great advantage: that the frequent auditing of accounts of the Local Authorities, especially in the case of the Parish Councils, will admit of any irregularity and illegality being promptly checked, and, therefore, my view is that the half-yearly audit is necessary in the interest of economy and efficiency.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)said, the right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the Local Board accounts wore at present audited yearly, and, inasmuch as there were 700 such bodies, and another half hundred Improvement Commissioners, whose accounts came under the same category, it would add very greatly to the expense and labour if the audit were directed to be made half-yearly instead of yearly. It seemed to him that a yearly examination of accounts, which, after all, were comparatively simple, would be amply sufficient; and although there was a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the extra security against illegality and irregularity, yet, looking to the expense and extra work involved, he believed the yearly audit would be the better plan. He was not one of those who attached much value to audits, so far as Boards of Guardians were concerned; he doubted if they paid the expenses of the district auditors.
MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said, his preference was for the scheme of the Government. Nothing was better for Local Authorities than for them to find the means of spending money as difficult as possible. The auditor, therefore, should be brought as frequently as possible into contact with the Local Authorities. Something had been said about expense, but he would like to mention a case within his personal knowledge. It involved comprehensive accounts bearing on 794 commercial transactions for which he was himself responsible, and an eminent firm of auditors—one of the best known in the United Kingdom—were entrusted with the audit. They were asked to exercise their discretion as to whether— for a, fixed sum per annum—they would audit the accounts yearly or half-yearly, and they selected the latter alternative on the ground that the matters with which they had to deal were more fresh in the recollection of persons with whom they were brought into contact, and the audit consequently could be conducted with greater rapidity. The system had since been found to work well. He could only add that, in his opinion, it would be a great advantage, especially of the first year's working of the Bill, to keep the check of the official auditor as close as possible over the expenditure of the new authorities.
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)said, the right hon. Gentleman had described this as a purely administrative matter. He evidently looked at it solely from the point of view of the Local Government Board. But there was another aspect, and that was from the point of view of the ratepayers and the Local Boards of the district. He viewed with great distrust this unnecessary multiplication of Government auditors. At present the audit was a farce, and although the right hon. Gentleman told them he had taken steps to expedite it, he would still rind it difficult to keep it tip to date. In 99 cases out of 100 the calling in of this auditor's services was a waste of time and money for all practical purposes. Yet what were the Government proposing to do? Let them take the ease of a parish with a rateable value of £4,000. It was entitled to raise a 6d. rate, which would produce £100. That was to be the limit of its expenditure, and vet twice a year a solemn gentleman was to visit the village and audit the accounts. It was preposterous to propose such a thing. What Radicals in the old days won Id have done, before these new-fangled notions about Government supervision of everybody and at all times came to be the fashion, would have been to trust to the common sense of the villagers to see that their small revenue was properly spent. If the Government proposal were adopted there would be something 795 like 10,000 or 12,000 fresh audits to be arranged, and he would like to know how many new auditors would have to he appointed and what their salaries would amount to? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think the half-yearly audit would involve very little additional labour on the auditors, but he could tell him of officials who were already almost "off their heads," in consequence of the multiplicity of letters and requisitions as to odd sixpences and eightpences, and if that worry were to be increased they would never get through their work. The moment that a public official connected with a Central Department was appointed to do this work he immediately developed into a doctrinaire and a martinet, causing infinite annoyance and trouble without conferring any corresponding advantage. He thought that one audit in the year was quite sufficient, and he would be quite prepared to vote for that.
§ MR. HOWARD (Middlesex, Tottenham)said, he wished to join in the appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to have a half-yearly audit. Whatever might have been the advantages or disadvantages of a Government yearly audit of the accounts of Local Boards, a half-yearly audit would lead to considerable expense, and take away officers from their ordinary duties.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)said, he wanted to deal particularly with the case of the Parish Councils. He did hope the Government would provide the most simple and elementary audit that could be contrived with regard to parish expenditure. What they had to ensure was that small sums of money should be honestly and bonâfide spent within the powers of the Parish Councils, and in his judgment the best plan was to let the audit of local accounts be made by some person of integrity and honour selected by the parish meeting, and who should direct the Local Authority as to the mode in which the accounts should be kept, as well as supervise the whole expenditure of the village. There was another reason, stronger still, in favour of a local audit by a non-professional person. It was of the utmost importance that the accounts should be made up and audited in time for the parish meeting, and with Govern- 796 ment or professional auditors that would be impossible. What was the good of holding a parish meeting if the officials went out of office and new ones were appointed before the annual accounts were laid before the parishioners?
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he had no objection to the District Council accounts being audited twice a year if it were thought desirable; but when they came to the question of parish accounts, they must remember the enormous amount of work that would be entailed by a half-yearly audit. It was most important that the accounts should be audited before the annual parish meeting, and surely it would be possible to have a balance-sheet fairly and reasonably audited by a local person. But with something like 15,000 parishes, and consequently 30,000 audits a year, they would require a largely increased staff, because if one man were able to visit four villages a day it would take 50 men devoting their whole time and having no holiday to complete the round in a year. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate increasing the staff of auditors to that extent, simply to audit the parish accounts? It surely would be absurd to do that. As had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Sunderland, the amounts in most cases would be very small; in many parishes a 6d. rate would not produce more than £30 or £40, and he therefore agreed that it would be better to devise machinery for appointing local auditors. It would serve all necessary purposes, and save a great deal of expense.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERWe seem to be mixing up two questions. The Amendment is whether the accounts shall be made up yearly or half-yearly. The hon. Member for Sunderland does not like the present system of the Government audits. He talks about the old Radicalism, but I would remind him that the Act of Parliament constituting them was passed in the days when the older Radicalism was triumphant, and it was because there was so much extravagance and illegality in the appropriation of public money that Parliament, acting on the Report of a Select Committee, determined to introduce the system of a Government audit. From that principle the Government cannot consent 797 to depart, because it affords a protection to the ratepayers against illegal expenditure. The hon. Member says the amounts in many parishes will be small. That may be so, but there are also many parishes in which the expenditure will be considerable.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI have, Sir, no intention to transgress your ruling, but I am simply replying to observations which have been made. We do regard the Government district audit as a, most valuable provision. I am not going to press for a half-yearly audit if the general sense of the Committee should be in favour of an annual one, but I must dissent from the statement of hon. Members as to the expense, for I feel sure no professional accountant would do the work cheaper than it is done under the Government system. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Cambridge University, an ex-Secretary to the Treasury, suggesting that the audit should be conducted by some chance person picked up in the village. Such a suggestion only shows what changes may take place in one's opinion when he crosses the floor of the House. Then we have been told by the hon. Member for Sunderland of the worries to officials in regard to illegal payments of sixpences. Let inc tell him that, though individually small, the aggregate of these improper and illegal payments is very large; and there is this additional fact to be borne in mind; that the knowledge that there is a Government audit operates to restrain them, just as the review by the House of Commons of the Estimates keeps down Departmental expenditure. It has sometimes been asked what is the use of discussing our Estimates in Committee, seeing that no reductions are ever made. But the fact is, that the real economy is effected not by the discussions, but by the knowledge, that the House; has power to discuss, and so, in regard to public accounts, the knowledge that the district auditor will detect illegal payments and make the members ordering them pay the amount out of their own pockets, effects a, real economy by making the Local Authorities more careful than they would otherwise be.
§ MR. W. LONGpointed out that it would be very difficult to associate the District Council and the Parish Council either with respect, to account keeping or audit. No useful purpose would be served by having the parochial accounts made up half-yearly; but the District Council's expenditure was of a varying character and sometimes large; in amount, and it would certainly be better to have district accounts made up half-yearly. As to the parish accounts, he thought it would be amply sufficient if they were made up yearly. Later on he hoped to have an opportunity of saving-a few words as to the nature of the audit to be applied to parish accounts, and to speak from the point of view of a set of public officials, to whose duties it was proposed to make such a very large addition.
§ SIR C. W. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)said, he would like to be told whether the clause was to be applied to Loudon; because in London the auditors were elected annually, and it would be wise to preserve that system in London. He agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool as to the distinction between parish and district accounts.
§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)could not see any great difficulty in the way of the parish accounts as well as the District Council accounts being made up half-yearly. As to whether there should be a yearly or half-yearly audit, he did not wish to prejudge that question—but it was an entirely different matter to the making up of accounts.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)said, that although the Amendment related to the date of making up the accounts, the discussion had mainly turned on the question of auditing them. As he understood the Chairman had ruled that out of Order, he would reserve his remarks; but on the Amendment he was bound to say that, though it might be desirable in the case of large bodies like the London School Board and District Councils to have the accounts made up half-yearly, he thought it was extremely doubtful if it was worth while doing it in the case of small parishes.
Then, with regard to the audit—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANOrder, older! The hon. Member is aware that that is not in Order. He has already twice referred to that, subject.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he quite agreed that the District Councils should makeup their accounts half-yearly, but the Parish Council would be composed to a large extent of rustics, whose knowledge of figures was small, and for them to make up the accounts once a year would be burden enough. It was no doubt easy enough for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, with his well-known facility in figures, to make up accounts; but seeing that many farmers were unable to keep proper accounts, they might rely upon it that the unfortunate rustics would find the making up of half-yearly accounts too great a burden for them. He therefore hoped that the Committee would favourably entertain the Amendment.
§ MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON (Shropshire, Oswestry)said, his opinion was very much in favour of the Government proposal. It was a mistake to argue this question on the basis that the parishes affected were small. Some of them were very large, and therefore half-yearly accounts would be preferable, although perhaps a simpler method of audit might be devised for the parish accounts. But as to accounts, he hoped they would have one and the same system for both the District and the Parish Councils.
§ COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)said, he was thoroughly in favour of half-yearly audits. The question of expense did not arise, seeing that they were paid for by an ad valorem fee, and they had been told that the audits of the parish accounts might be made at the same time as those of the Poor Law Board accounts. He therefore did not see how any inconvenience would arise, while every good parish officer would desire to have the burden of the accounts shifted from his shoulders twice a year.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLAs the decision on this point obviously turns on the late question of the audit, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEmoved to leave out "29th," and insert "30th," as the date fixed in September for the making up of the accounts. He said that the 30th was the easier date to remember, and there was no special virtue in the 800 29th. They had already altered the date in March, and he would like to know why they should not revert to the secular calendar for September?
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 27, line 16, leave out "twenty-ninth," and insert "thirtieth."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
§ Question proposed, "That 'twenty-ninth' stand part of the Clause."
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfarsaid, the only reason for fixing the 29th September was that it was the usual quarter day; but if the Committee wished it, the Government would not oppose the change.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the 29th was the proper day, as in all agricultural districts contracts dated from that day. Tenancies began on quarter day.
THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMANOrder order! Agricultural contracts have nothing to do with the question of making up the accounts.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsubmitted with all due respect that it had very much to do with it, and the 29th was the most natural date to which to make up the accounts.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESmoved to leave out "Local Government Board" and insert "County Council" in the phrase,
In such form as the Local Government Board prescribe.He said, his reason was that the Local Government Board did not possess that local knowledge which seemed to be necessary in dealing with this question. He would no doubt be out of Order in discussing the general question of audits, but he thought his argument would be found to be equally applicable to that subject and to the Amendment. The forms of account in rural districts must necessarily vary. In one part the District Council would have to deal with foreshores and fisheries, and in another with drainage outfalls and floods, and in each case different forms of account would be required. In no case need they be complicated, but it struck him that the County Council would be the best authority to decide the form, as it would 801 possess local knowledge. He did not think it desirable that this power should be retained in the hands of the Local Government Board.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 27, line 18, to leave out the words "Local Government Board," and insert the words "County Council."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to he left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERI am aware of the hon. Member's horror of the Local Government Board, but I cannot accept the Amendment. The Local Government Board has all the necessary machinery at command, and it would not be to the public advantage, nor would the County Council desire, to have this transference of duty.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 27, line 19, after the word "of," to insert the words "accounts audited by the auditors of."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, that this Amendment afforded a convenient opportunity to put a question to the President of the Local Government Board on the subject of the audit. If Parliament intended to throw on the district auditors not only the audit of the district accounts, but the audit of the parochial accounts as well, it would be a question how far the existing staff could do the work. He feared it would moan a gigantic addition to that staff. He could speak with personal experience of the way in which the auditors did their work. They were a most conscientious body of public officials, who did their best to carry out the difficult duties devolving upon them. How did the Government propose that the additional work should be performed? In considering the suggestion of the hon. Member for Sunderland to do away with the necessity for a public auditor, they were confronted with this difficulty, that the Bill contained limitations upon public expenditure, and there must be some one to see that those limitations were not exceeded. The Parish and District 802 Councils were to be allowed to spend money in certain specified directions, and the duty must be imposed on some recognised individual, of seeing that they obeyed the regulations. He regarded with apprehension the invasion of the villages by a public auditor, but as yet he was unable to see what other proposal could be made in order to maintain the principle of the Bill, that the expenditure should not stray out of the path Parliament had laid down for it, and not exceed the limits imposed by the House. Without the intervention of the auditors, he did not see how the precaution was to be preserved. At the same time, he did not think they should lay those heavy additional duties upon the auditors, without some indication of the steps the Government intended to take to enable the work to be done. It might be possible, for instance, to have local auditors to see that the regulations were observed. He did not share the views of the hon. Member for King's Lynn in desiring to hand over the audit to the Comity Council; he was anxious that the work should be done by Government officials, because he did not want the localities to pay for it, and he wanted the responsibility to rest upon the Government.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERThe Amendment now before the Committee does not raise the general question that has been introduced, because all it does is to exempt the accounts of boroughs, except in the two or three eases where special Acts provide that their accounts shall be audited by district auditors. Yet the question raised is a very proper one. The hon. Gentleman sees the difficulty of having any other than Government officials; and, personally, I cannot accept any private audit. The Bill limits the expenditure of money, and there must be a responsible person to see whether it is expended rightly or wrongly. The present staff of the Local Government Board is quite equal to the discharge of the duties that will be thrown upon them; but some assistant auditors may have to be appointed. The parochial audits, although numerous, will not be long in duration. I can assure hon. Members who are interested in this question that a Government audit will be cheaper than any other to the ratepayers. The sug- 803 gestion of the right hon. Member for Bodmin that the parish accounts should be audited once a year I shall, at the proper time, be prepared to accept.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was rather severe on him a little while previously, because, although he was an ex-Secretary to the Treasury. He had not shown himself sufficiently zealous on behalf of Government audits. But he must protest against the prospective increase of charge which the Bill would put upon the National Exchequer. He thought that a scheme might be devised by which the audit might be local in the first instance with inspection of the accounts from time to time by a Government auditor. There was no objection to the local audit in a case in which people were spending entirely their own money, and in the case of small parishes everybody would be able to know how the money was spent, so that with a responsible local auditor there would be no real risk of lavish or illegal expenditure being overlooked. It was quite different in cases where people were spending Government money, for then a rigid audit was necessary. He would like to point out further that with a Government audit there must be delay, and delay would be fatal to regularity and economy, because the Local Authorities would know that months must elapse before the expenditure would be inquired into, and by that time those responsible for it would have gone out of Office. He was quite sure that extravagance would be much better checked by a prompt amateur local audit.
§ MR. F. S. STEVENSON (Suffolk, Eye)said, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman adhered to an official audit, because amateur auditing was most unsatisfactory, and efficient auditing required a good deal of knowledge and experience, which amateurs were not likely to possess. The district auditors would have to act in a quasi-judicial capacity; they would have to decide to what extent, if any, the expenditure contravened the provisions of the Act, and it would therefore be necessary to have experienced men, accustomed to act promptly and with authority". Small sums might be involved in the points raised, but in the aggregate they formed a considerable 804 total. He knew of a union in which, until the Government auditor interfered, annual payments were made to a ratcatcher, and that would have gone on till now, but for the auditor. Equally small matters would crop up in relation to the parish accounts, but it was at the same time necessary to have some one competent to decide them. He would like in regard to the general question to say that the Local Boards' Association was in favour of making up accounts yearly and having them audited yearly.
§ MR. FORWOOD (Lancashire, Ormskirk)said, he, too, hoped the Government would adhere to official auditing, and he only regretted that an exception was made in the case of boroughs. Still the Government might expedite the work by committing it to good local men under proper regulations. Those local men would be the officers of the Board for the purpose of the audit.
§ MR. CLOUGH (Portsmouth)said, he was entirely in favour of the audits being done by local men instead of by district auditors sent from a Central Department. The advantage of having a local auditor would be that it would bring about decentralization. The auditor's fee could be fixed if necessary, by the Local Government Board. The local audit would also save travelling expenses. With regard to half-yearly audits, he held that they would not increase the amount of labour.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that the proper audit was the local audit—in fact, it was the only possible effective audit. His complaint as to the whole of this Bill was that it put the localities under the screw of the Local Government Board, and the auditor was the screw driver, because he might allow or disallow the items of an account as he liked. The Local Government Board auditor had no knowledge of a locality to enable him to judge as to whether charges were right or wrong. There was a case in Wiltshire where for many years stone had been used on a main road which cost 2s. a yard, and when the auditor came down he allowed Mendip stone which cost 10s. a yard. The cost of a local audit would be much cheaper—one-third of the cost. 805 They had been told that the Local Government Board would send down an auditor who would charge nothing, but the Act itself told them that he would cost three guineas a day. The locality whose accounts were audited would have to pay that. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept an Amendment which he had down, in which he suggested that the audit should be local.
§ * SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)said, he thought the Government had acted wisely in excluding boroughs from the official audit; but he hoped the time was not far distant when they would be brought under the district auditor. The accounts were often extremely complicated.
§ MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he considered this a very important question on the score of expense. This Bill would throw a good deal of expense on the smaller localities, much of which would be caused by an official audit. It was quite true that the expense would be charged according to fees, but this was a different kind of audit to any that had ever been adopted by the Local Government Board before in respect of the amounts being very small; therefore the fees would have to be raised, and they knew that the expense would ultimately fall upon the parish. His right hon. Friend had said that it would not do to take up a "chance" person to audit the accounts, but they had something like 240 boroughs in this country that were all audited by "picked-up" persons, as they were termed. It should be borne in mind that this expense would apply to something like 14,000 parishes, and then; would be 28,000 audits a year, all to be paid for ultimately by the localities, which would watch closely the nature of the expenditure; therefore on the score of expense in these small localities he strongly advocated that the auditor should be a local man, for it would be done cheaply, and far better. With regard to the suggestion that district auditors should be sent into boroughs, he thought they would get into trouble if they should act there in the pettifogging manner in which they acted in smaller places. He hoped the Government would not impose this comparatively enormous expenditure on the parishes.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERappealed to the Committee to dispose of the Amendment now, and the other questions which had been discussed, which, although interesting, had not been exactly relevant, could be raised on another Amendment.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston), on behalf of Sir A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.), moved an Amendment—page 27, to leave out lines 20 and 21, which were as follows:—
But inclusive of the accounts of a Joint Committee appointed by a Borough Council with another Council not being a Borough Council.He would like an explanation as to the meaning of the words from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 27, to leave out lines 20 and 21.—(Sir R. Temple.)
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the arrangements proposed by the Government in the clause were in accordance with precedent, and had been adopted with reference to Port Sanitary Authorities.
§ SIR R. TEMPLEasked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. STOREYmoved to insert, as a proviso, at the end of the sub-section the words "and the accounts of a parish." He said the object he had in view was simply to provide that, whilst District Council accounts and urban district accounts should be audited by the Government auditor, such a rule should not apply to the trivial accounts of small parishes. His right hon. Friend had said that he did not agree with the idea that these audits should be by local persons rather than by Government auditors. He would draw his right hon. Friend's attention to the important case of London. He wondered if hon. Members who were decrying locally-elected auditors knew that in London there were 38 parishes, some with 100,000 inhabitants and others with 200,000 inhabitants, and that the whole of the accounts of those parishes were at the present time audited by locally-elected auditors. What was 807 his right hon. Friend going to do with them? He was not going to make the Bill except them, as he understood, but was going to leave London as it was. He should have thought that if there was any reason for superseding these auditors the case would have been much stronger in London than in the rural parishes. The right hon. Gentleman knew that these limitations had applied, and did apply, to boroughs which had no Government auditors. Boroughs for all purposes used to be limited altogether, and their funds were to be spent in a prescribed way, and yet they did not go wrong. [Mr. FORWOOD: Don't they?] He was sorry to hear that. He did not mean to say that in exceptional cases boroughs had not done what was wrong, but he meant to say that even where they had gone wrong he would rather trust to the daily supervision of an auditor on the spot than to the chance visit of a Government official. He wanted the Committee to consider what would be the cost of the proposal of the Government that there should be official audits in every parish. Some 10,000 or 12,000 of these audits would have to be held every half-year, and, supposing that two months should be taken to be a reasonable limit of time in which to complete them, about 240 audits would have to be held every day. Allowing the time which would be occupied in travelling from one parish to another, he thought that about three audits per diem would be all that each auditor would be able to get through. Under these circumstances, he estimated that about 66 new official auditors would have to be appointed. He thought that a very unnecessary proposition, and he submitted that it would be quite sufficient to have official auditors for the accounts of Urban and District Councils and to leave the auditing of accounts in the parishes to responsible persons, who might easily be found within the parish. If the Committee would adopt this or some similar Amendment they would prevent the incursion of Government officials into local affairs, and all that was necessary would be secured by the action of the people themselves.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 27, at the end of line 21, after the words "Borough Council," to insert the words "and the accounts of a parish."—(Mr. Storey.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)said, he thought, from his own experience, that it would be much better to have official rather than amateur auditors, particularly at a time when disastrous consequences had arisen in so many companies and commercial undertakings owing to inefficient auditing. He knew of a case where the auditor had finished the auditing, and afterwards could not sign the accounts. He knew also cases in London of persons having been appointed by popular election to audit the accounts which needed alteration. He hoped the Government would insist upon having official auditors.
§ MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he rose to make the suggestion that it might be possible, without having a general Government audit, to enable ratepayers, where there was ground to suspect extravagance, to call in a Government auditor. He thought some provision of that kind should be made.
§ MR. W. LONGsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had left the House, because he thought it was desirable that they should hear whether the Government could not meet the various suggestions which had been made. He had endeavoured to indicate his opinion, from the experience he had had, that it would be absolutely impossible for the existing staff of auditors or anything like them to do the work. Then, as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, his proposal was that some additional temporary auditors should be appointed, but even that would not meet the point.
§ It being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.