COMMITTEE. [Progress, 3rd January.]

HC Deb 04 January 1894 vol 20 cc833-916

[THIRTY-FIRST NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

[Sir J. GOLDSMID (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.]

Clause 45 (Audit of accounts of District and Parish Councils and inspection).

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

Debate resumed.

SIR D. H. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

said, he wished to raise a point of Order. He understood yesterday that an Amendment was accepted altering the date for making up accounts Prom the 29th to the 30th of September. By some error the date was still given in the clause, as it appeared on the Notice Paper, as the 30th.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That is not a point of Order. That is an error in printing, which may be corrected.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

How is the point to be dealt with?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The point cannot, be discussed. It is a clerical error which will lie corrected. It is given correctly in my own handwriting in the Chairman's copy of the Bill.

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

I have considered the question raised by the Amendment, and the result has been fully to confirm the view I mentioned yesterday its to the proper course to take. The proposal of the Amendment is to except the accounts of the Parish Council from audit by a district auditor and practically to put them in the hands of the local and non-official auditors. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the position in which the matter stands. The present state of things has been the result of a long series of legislative Acts, and the tendency of all legislation has been, I think wisely, to extend the principle of public audit. There are at the present time none of these Local Authorities, except one, whose accounts are not audited by the officials of the Local Government Board. The accounts of municipal boroughs are audited in a manner prescribed, I think, by the Act of 1835—namely, by one auditor nominated by the Mayor and an elected auditor appointed by the constituency. A good deal of exaggeration seems to prevail in Members' minds as to the audit staff of the Local Government Board and as to the complications that would arise if this clause were adopted. At the present time the accounts of Guardians, of all Rural Sanitary Authorities, of the Overseers of all parishes—and that covers all parochial accounts—of the Surveyors of Highways, and also of School Boards, are audited by a district auditor, generally at the offices of the Union. There is no question of sending anybody down from London. We have 38 audit districts throughout the country, and there are 38 auditors besides five assistant auditors and three temporary assistant auditors. Of course, each official has his staff. As a rule, the officials go to the offices of the Union, and there the accounts are audited. Of course, any expense in travelling is allowed. I have consulted the head of the present staff of the Local Government Board as to what additional assistance will be required if the Committee accepts the proposal of the Government, and he is of opinion that a very small addition to the present staff would be ample to meet all the necessities of the case. Some question was raised yesterday as to the amount of work the auditors did, and as to whether the audit was of any value. I have gone carefully through the disallowances and surcharges made in the last financial year, respecting which we have a, Report, and I find that 2,270 improper payments were disallowed in that year in the accounts of the Overseers and Guardians and that 603 appeals were made; that 307 disallowances were made in the accounts of the Urban Sanitary Authorities, 110 in the accounts of the Rural Sanitary Authorities, 123 in the accounts of Highway Authorities, 449 in the accounts of Sur- veyors of Highways, and 313 in the accounts of School Boards. Putting all these figures together, there were in the year over 3,500 disallowances of improper and illegal payments. This, I think, will be sufficient evidence to the Committee that it is necessary to have these independent and competent authorities to audit the accounts in order to prevent the ratepayers being improperly charged.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

What was the total amount disallowed?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am notable to give the amount. I notice in the Report that among the items disallowed a few years ago in a highway account was a charge for killing foxes. This was said to be a regular and proper payment made for the maintenance of the highways, but of course it was disallowed. There are some other items in the archives of the Local Government Board which I could mention to the Committee to illustrate the need of putting a stop to improper payments of public money for eccentric purposes. I shall not be accused of want of faith in the Parish Councils, but I wish to say with all respect, as I have said again and again, that the Parish Councils are untried bodies, and I think that, if it is necessary to subject to careful audit the expenses of all other Local Authorities, no case has been made out for exempting the accounts of the Parish Councils from such audit. Well, then, what will be the cost? Here is a body which cannot spend more than £100 a year, and it is said that we are going to send someone down from London to audit their accounts, and that it would be much cheaper to employ some local accountant to do the work. I will tell the Committee what the cost will be of such an audit. It will be exactly one sovereign. I will defy anybody to get accounts judicially audited—because there must be a power of disallowance—at a less cost than that. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has a very strong feeling on this question of official auditors. I have a very strong feeling on the other side, and I should be very sorry in the interests of economical administration and in the interests of the ratepayers if the official check supplied by the district auditor were dispensed with. The Committee has said in previous sections, which limit the powers of the Parish Councils, that they are not to spend money on certain things, but may spend it on other things. Someone must have the power of seeing that these provisions are properly carried out. Under these circumstances, we are bound to oppose the Amendment. As I intimated yesterday, I have no particular preference for a half-yearly audit. I have no objection to the accounts being audited yearly, and on that question I will follow the judgment of the Committee, but the principle of the official audit of the accounts is one to which we must adhere.

MR. STOREY

said, he was always frightened when his right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) began to talk about principles. He (Mr. Storey) had no strong feeling in the matter at all; it was merely a question of business. He knew that in thousands of cases the money spent on the official audits was thrown away. His right hon. Friend said the expense was not a very serious matter. He (Mr. Storey) knew one county where there were more than 100 parishes in which the average amount spent would not be more than £ 10 or £20.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

If the amount is under £20 the expense will be 5s. If it is under £50 it will be 10s., and if it is under £100 it will be £1.

MR. STOREY

said, he did not press the matter very much, but he thought it would be a waste of money to have the official audit. It was like using an elephant to pick up a pin. He knew something about the disallowances that were made. The auditors must disallow something for the sake of their own credit. His right hon. Friend had been unable to toll the total amount of the disallowances, but if he had obtained the total it would have been a very inconvenient sum to put before the Committee. He had known instances where the most trivial sums had been disallowed on the most trivial grounds, and where, after considerable correspondence, the disallowances had been annulled.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

thanked the President of the Local Government Board for his statement with reference to the necessary addition to the staff of auditors. Of course, he accepted absolutely what the right hon. Gentleman had said on the subject, but he confessed he was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statements that all these additional audits could be carried out without any large increase in the staff. When he (Mr. Long) was at the Local Government Board the existing staff was very fully employed, and, indeed, had hardly time to carry out the duties they had to perform. At the same time, he unreservedly accepted the right hon. Gentleman's assurance. He thought, however, before the Amendment was withdrawn the Committee ought clearly to understand which was the system under which these audits would be held. He understood the proposal to be that the parochial officers should attend at the Union offices at the time when the Union audit was held. If that was the case, the sum of £1 which had been mentioned would not altogether cover the cost of holding the audit. The Union offices would, of course, be at a considerable distance from a great many parishes, and the parochial officials would in many cases have to reach them by road, thus involving not only expense but loss of time. If the expenses of the officials were to come out of the parish rates it would operate in many cases unfairly in the different parishes. It was quite conceivable that the officials of the poorest parishes would have the longest distances to travel, and it would be an injustice and a hardship if the rates of the small parish were in consequence burdened to a greater degree than the rates of a larger parish. He was afraid that in some cases the expenses would impose a charge upon the rates which would be in no respect in proportion to the capability of the parish to pay. In the neighbourhood of towns large villages frequently abounded because a certain proportion of the people who worked in the town lived in the villages, where rents were lower than in the town. The officials of those villages would have a very short distance to go to reach the Union offices, whilst the officials of the small rural villages would have a much greater distance to go. At the same time, he quite felt the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman was in in this matter. There was no doubt whatever that the tendency of Parliament in modern times had been to insist upon a capable and sufficient audit of public accounts. The Government were now trying to apply the same pro- visions to totally varying and different conditions of things. Parishes with considerable populations, in which there might be a great temptation to excessive expenditure, ought undoubtedly to have their accounts officially audited, but he submitted that in small villages an audit was unnecessary. He was emboldened to speak of the parson and the squire now, because the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) last night had elevated them into the position of auditors to the Parish Councils. It frequently happened that the squire's agent, or some official in his office, at the present time audited the parish accounts. This was quite a sufficient audit in the case of small parishes, but in the case of larger parishes it would not he sufficient, lie thought it would be well if the Government would adopt the proposal made by the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse) yesterday, and provide that parishes having a population below a certain limit should have their accounts made subject to audit on the requisition of a certain number of electors, whilst there should be a compulsory audit of the larger parishes. He would suggest to the Government in perfect good faith that between now and a subsequent stage of the Bill they should consider whether any modification of the clause could be made.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

wished to know whether the audit was to take place in the parishes or at the Union offices? He did not think that in any case the £5 mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman would pay the whole costs of the audit, even as far as the Local Government Board was concerned. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any calculation of what the actual cost would be? If the audit did not take place in the villages they would cost a great deal to the Local Government Board, whilst if they took place in the centre of the Union they would throw great cost and trouble on the parish officials.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I thought I had explained myself clearly. The auditors reside in the locality, and make their own arrangements, having regard to the convenience of the public as to when and where they hold their audit. If they make a foolish and stupidly expensive arrangement they are in the ser- vice of the Local Government Board, and the locality will at once appeal to the Board, who will take care that the interests of the pockets of the taxpayers do not suffer. I did not say that all the audits take place in the Union offices. What I mentioned was that the general practice was for the accounts to be audited in the centre of the Union. I only gave the Committee an illustration, and I do not know whether the Union offices are used in every case. All I say is that we do not anticipate any great addition being required to the staff, and we do not think the arrangement will involve much additional expense. As to the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Long), I think be has overlooked the fact that there is no parish at this moment which does not have its accounts audited, and there is no complaint that they are put to inconvenience. We have provided in this Bill that where there is an Assistant Overseer he shall be clerk of the Parish Council, and a similar provision is made with regard to collectors of poor rates. These officials have already to go to the auditor with their accounts, and therefore no additional burden will be imposed upon the rates. This question has received the most careful attention of the Local Government Board, and we are satisfied that the arrangement we propose can be worked, and worked economically.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, it might be taken for granted that in regard to the smaller parishes the proposal of the Government would lead to great expense. The 1 per cent., which was the rate of payment at the present time, might be sufficient under the present system of auditing, because the larger places paid for the smaller ones; but when a large number of parish accounts had to be audited, one or two things would happen—either the audit would be worth nothing or the expense would be increased. The first outcry of the auditors would be that the fees must be increased. Then there was the question of the expenses of the officials attending at the Union offices. Some of them might have to remain away from home until the next day, and altogether the actual cost would amount to a very considerable sum in proportion to the amount audited.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

did not think the Government had properly considered the operation of their plans in sparsely-populated parts of the country, where the rural parishes were small and widely divided one from the other. It seemed to him perfectly clear that in such districts there must be great expense. Take such a district as the dales of Yorkshire, where the villages were small and widely separated. If the auditor went to the villages he would have to go about in a gig and put up at the public-houses. Who was to pay the expense he would thus incur? Whether the cost was thrown on the parish or on the Consolidated Fund it seemed to him to be equally a waste of money and equally objectionable. If the accounts were audited at the Union offices, the parish officials would have to travel perhaps 10 miles to reach those offices; they would want certain refreshments, and would possibly have to stay all night, so that the expense would be considerably more than the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said that, as the Representative of a county in which the parishes were very small, he had been disposed last night to support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland; but, having slept over the matter, he had come to the conclusion that the Government course was the right course. It would be an advantage to have the accounts kept on a regular system and efficiently audited, and, so long as the audit was once a year, the advantage of it would exceed the cost and trouble of it. In the smaller parishes, expending £20 a year, the fee would only be 5s., but, whether 5s. or 10s., it would be received back in the advantages of having the accounts properly controlled and supervised.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

I think that everyone who has heard the discussion must feel that this is a question of considerable importance, but one in regard to which there is no difference on Party lines. There are certain observations of the President of the Local Government Board which I do not quite follow. The right hon. Gentleman said there is already in every parish an audit of the Parochial Accounts; but unless I am greatly mistaken, the only audit of accounts in connection with the parish is in regard to the Poor Law expenditure.

MR. EVERETT

said, that in Suffolk the surveyor in every parish had to have his accounts audited.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

In most counties the surveyor is not a Parochial Authority. In the hon Gentleman's county he is a Parochial Authority, but he is not in the majority of counties. We are, therefore, creating an entirely new audit, and it seems to me almost impossible that we can set up accounts in 14.000 localities without some augmentation of staff, and consequently augmentation of expenses. While I agree with the hon. Member for Sunderland that to send to each village officers who derive their authority from a. Central Board in London seems absurd, when we are dealing with local interests we have to remember I hat finance is the great crux of local government, and if local government in this country should prove to be a failure—which Heaven forbid—I prophesy that the failure will be financial. If the new authorities we are now calling into existence should fail, it will be because they rashly and foolishly, but with the best of motives, augmented their expenditure far beyond the rate-paying powers of the localities. The total amount involved in the surcharges made during the past year may be comparatively trilling, but it must be recollected that the measure of the efficiency of the auditors is not indicated by the amount of the surcharge, but rather by the improper expenditure which would have taken place had no such audit been carried out. There would he a certain inclination on the part of the new authorities to spend their money, not for any absurd or selfish purpose, but ignorantly and foolishly beyond the authority which this Bill gave to them; and when it is suggested that this expenditure, which may be described as good-natured, should be checked by the parson and the squire, I am not sure that these two parochial powers, usually the most good-natured of men, will be the most rigid censors of expenditure of that character. I do not consider it safe to leave these smaller parishes without the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in the shape of a possible audit, if they indulge in ex- penditure of an improper character, and, therefore, if we have to choose between the alternative of having the plan of the Government, and having no audit at all in the case of the smaller authorities, I feel disposed to support the Government.

MR. STEPHENS (Middlesex, Hornsey)

said, he considered that the whole efficacy of an audit rested in the power to surcharge. That was a, point of importance, which seemed to have escaped the Committee, especially as the President of the Local Government Board had said that the surcharges m number were considerable.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, that as they were dealing with the cost of the proposed audit they might fairly take the cost of I he audit under the present Acts as an illustration—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member can go into the question of the audit, but not into the items.

MR. BARTLEY

Do I understand your ruling to be that I cannot refer to the cost of the audit?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

You cannot go into the items of expenditure.

MR. BARTLEY

I was not doing so. I was going into the cost of the audit under the present system as an illustration. Will that be in Order?

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MR. BARTLEY

said, he found that the House voted £50,000 a year for the cost of the audit under the present system. Of course, a great deaf of that was refunded through the stamp arrangements by the localities. He thought the Committee might take it that £50,000 would also be the yearly cost of auditing under the new arrangement, and that being so, it very large expenditure would be placed either on the localities or on Parliament. It was true that they got hack £34,000 under the present system from the ratepayers; but they might take it for granted that under the now arrangements the amount returned would be very small. Therefore, they would be really putting on Imperial taxation this large additional cost. He agreed that there must be an efficient audit in every case; but it seemed to him that they might save this large cost by having in the smaller districts some local audit once a year.

MR. HANBURY

said, that as the value of an audit did not lie so much in a man going down for the purpose once, a year, but in the feeling that a man might appear at any time, perhaps they might arrange a system of surprise audits. That system existed in at least two of the large spending Departments of the Government. In the Admiralty and War Office the Auditor and Comptroller General did not audit all the accounts every year, but took separate departments of the accounts year after year, but not in regular order, and the result was as good as if he audited the whole accounts right through every year. The same principle prevailed under the Education Acts. The Inspectors did not go down every year to inspect the schools, and a few years might elapse before an Inspector came on the scone; but the feeling that an Inspector might appear at any moment kept the schools up to the mark. If such a system were adopted in this case it, would undoubtedly save expense.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he desired to move, on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Member for London University, in page 27, line 22, after the word "audited," to insert the words "at least once a year." According to the arrangement in the Bill the accounts of the Parish and District Councils were to be audited half-yearly. If the Amendment were accepted, the accounts of the large parishes and districts might be audited twice a year, but in the small parishes and districts the audit would be yearly, the Local Government Board deciding where the audit should be once a year, and where twice a year.

Amendment proposed, In page 27,line 22,after the word "audited," to insert the words "at least once a year."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought the words would not carry out what his right hon. Friend wanted, while they would alter the existing law. The Solicitor General had put down an Amendment by which the Rural District Councils would be subjected to a half-yearly audit, leaving the Parish Councils subject to the same annual audit as the Urban Authorities. He would, therefore, advise his right hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that having dealt with the question of the audit, he proposed to deal now with the question of the auditor. He proposed to amend page 27, in line 22, by leaving out all after "by," in order to insert "an auditor appointed by the County Council." He desired to make a further appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to yield a little in his centralising notions, and, instead of sending down an auditor from London, to allow the County Council to appoint its own auditor. He did not say that there should be no audit. Indeed, he believed there had been some kind of audit in England from the days of King Alfred. But he desired the audit should be economical and effective, and it could neither be one nor the other if the auditor was sent from London, and his travelling expenses had to he paid. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the district auditor would live in the district, hut, in that case, surely the very last reason for his appointment and control by the Local Government Board disappeared. In the Report of the Local Government Board the right hon. Gentleman took credit for the auditors having discovered Overseers who kept large banking accounts, but made no return to the localities of the interest allowed by the banks on the balances. It was said that £3,000 a year were saved to the various localities by these discoveries of the auditors. But that was more an argument for the local auditor than for the Imperial auditor, for the local auditor would have known about these big accounts at the bank, and these tremendous losses of £3,000 would never have occurred. There was another argument in favour of the local auditor. He found in the same Report that a surcharge had been made by auditors for the killing of vermin. Now that might be a very necessary expenditure. In certain parishes—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, Order! The hon. Member may refer to the auditor, but not go into the items.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he was illustrating the necessity for local knowledge, but was close to the end of his remarks. What he was pleading for was for leaving some power of control over their accounts to the Local Authorities, and they were told that this Bill was for the retention of the powers of the Local Authorities. His proposal was a very modest one. He did not propose that the parish should appoint its own parish auditor; he did not propose that the district should appoint its own district auditor; but that the County Council, which was a separate entity, and had a large sum of money handed over to it as a County Authority, should have the power, instead of the Local Government Board, to appoint the auditors for the county. He hoped popular instinct would on this point move the right hon. Gentleman. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give up a little of his centralisation, and allow the County Councils to look over their own accounts and provide their own auditors.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 22, to leave out all after the word "by," and insert the words "an auditor appointed by the County Council."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.) Question proposed, "That the words 'a district auditor and' stand part of the Clause.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

I put the Question in that form, as some other Amendments have been handed in to me that are not on the Paper, a course which causes great inconvenience.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had already stated his views on this subject at an unpardonable length to the Committee, and, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's horror of the Local Government Board, he still adhered to those views.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

moved to strike out, in line 22, the words "the enactments," in order to insert the words "Section 247 of the Public Health Act of 1875." He said, their object should be to make the; Act as simple as possible for the Parish Councils. The words "the enactments" would lead to the impression that there were a variety of statutes dealing with the subject, whereas there was only Section 247 of the Public Health Act of 1875.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 22, to leave out the words "the enactments," and insert the words "Section 217 of the Public Health Act of 1875."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the enactments' stand part, of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there were a series of enactments with reference to the Local Authorities going down for a period of 30 years, and it was not practicable to suppose that anyone could sit down and understand a technical clause of this sort by merely reading it. He hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY

said, he would not press it, but he must protest against it being forced upon these villages to keep a library of statutes and law books in order to see how the enactments affected them. He did not believe the right hon. Gentleman himself knew at present what these enactments were.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Certainly not.

MR. HANBURY

said, that in that case he thought that it was hard these inhabitants of rural districts should have these enactments thrown at them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

said, the Amendment he proposed to move was to insert after the word "that" the words— In the case of the accounts of District Councils, their committees and officers. They did not think it was desirable the law should be altered in this respect, and his Amendment would leave the law as it was at present with regard to the audit of the accounts of Boards of Guardians.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 25, after the word "that," to insert the words "In the case of the accounts of District Councils, their committees and officers."—(Sir J. Rigby.)

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

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, that if he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman aright, he was going to have the accounts of a Parish Council audited once a year, and the accounts of District Councils twice a year.

SIR J. RIGBY

As they are now.

MR. STOREY

Quite so; but was there any reason why District Councils should be audited twice a year? He asked this question for the sake of information. The Government gave as a reason they wanted to alter as little as possible the existing law, but the whole of this Bill was an attempt to alter the existing law, and where they swallowed a camel they need not strain at a little gnat like this. The reason he asked was this. In his district they had 20 urban districts, in which the accounts were to be audited once a year, but they had 14 rural districts, in which the accounts were to be audited twice a year. He had before him a large urban district of 17,000 people, and that was to have its audit only once a year; but, then, there was a little rural district that did not contain anything like the number of people, and that was to have its accounts audited twice a year. In his county there was really no distinction between the rural and urban districts, and as the Bill conferred on the rural districts the powers which urban districts now possessed there would be practically no difference, except in name. He would ask his right hon. Friend whether it related to the Poor Law at all? If it did relate to the Poor Law audit that might be a reason for the Amendment. He did not know whether that was the reason of the right hon. Gentleman, but for his part he was very much in favour of uniformity in these executive matters. If it were possible he should say they ought to have all their audits once a year.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend, and he proposed to make it uniform, but the House said "no," and he had to give way. The position was this—that the Rural Sanitary Authority had its accounts audited half-yearly, and the same was the case with regard to Boards of Guardians, and it would be inconvenient to have two systems of audits in the same parish. The accounts of Boards of Guardians were audited half-yearly in order to keep a proper chock over the Poor Law expenditure, and in the present case it was necessary to consider these words, because the new Rural District Council would be technically the Board of Guardians.

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

said, the right hon. Gentleman said he wanted to introduce uniformity, and the hon. Gentleman opposite and himself were anxious the same result should be attained only in a somewhat different way. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be impossible for the accounts of Boards of Guardians to be audited once a year.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not impossible, but inconvenient.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he could not understand why they should not lie satisfied with a yearly audit of the Boards of Guardians; there was no reason, so far as the work of the auditors was concerned, why an annual audit should not be sufficient in those cases. He had the strongest objection to these half-yearly audits in all administrative matters. The auditors not only undertook the work of auditing the accounts, but they were vested with very much wider powers; they had not only to see that the accounts were properly kept, but also that the law was properly complied with. Their interpretation of whether the law was properly complied with was very wide indeed, and by this clause the whole of the administrative government of the country was placed in the hands of these auditors by the Local Government Hoard, and that was what he objected to. He would submit to the Committee a, very good illustration of the action, the unwarranted action, of these gentlemen. The Act of 1888 declared that a certain resolution should be confirmed by the County Council in order that certain payments should be made. The County Council with which he was connected was in the habit of taking these resolutions from their Finance Committee and affirming them as they came up on the minutes of their Committee. The auditor said, "That will not do for me; you must not only affirm the minutes, but also go through the farce of re-affirming them again by direct resolution." He called that a most audacious and impertinent interference with the legitimate duties of the County Council. He was greatly in favour of rebels, but in this case he had not been able to persuade the County Council to act as he thought they ought to act, but that was an illustration of what he thought was an improper interference by the auditor. By means of the auditor the Local Government Board spread out octopus arms ail over the country, crushing out rural free local government administration, and that was one of the reasons why he objected so strongly to half-yearly audits. For the extension of all accounts it yearly audit was quite sufficient. Some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House were of opinion that half-yearly audits were essential for Poor Law Guardian accounts. Many of them were gentlemen of experience, and of course he had great respect for their opinions, but, so far as his judgment went, he had not been able to discover the advantage even in the case of Poor Law Guardians, though in the case of the Poor Law he admitted there was a stronger case than in any other administration. The Poor Law administration was a highly centralised administration, but in his opinion the advantage to be gained by a half-yearly audit was more than counterbalanced by the disadvantages of the improper interference that took place by the auditors. Under those circumstances, if any hon. Member would do him the honour to go into the Lobby with him he should feel it his duty to take a Division on the Amendment of the Solicitor General.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston),

in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, asked the Solicitor General if they were correct in understanding that the proposal for half-yearly audits for the District Council was because they had to deal with Poor Law administration?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that was exactly the reason. They left the Parish Council accounts to be audited yearly, but as regarded the rural districts they left the audit of the accounts as they were now, half-yearly.

MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, he did not offer any objection to the proposal of the Government, though he did not like it on the whole, but he was prepared to accept the decision at which the Government had arrived. He would point out, however, that the Solicitor General was incorrect when he laid it down that the Government were making no change. He would point out that the Assistant Overseers and collectors of rates were not parochial officers, and they would not be inclined to undertake the large and complicated duties that would be thrown upon Parish Councils. He merely pointed this out, in order to show the Committee that they were not perpetuating a state of things that was already in existence.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

said, the Amendment he now proposed was to insert after the words "rural parish," in line 27, the words "or a rural district." He must apologise for putting down these Amendments only this morning, but owing to the great pace at which they scampered through the Bill yesterday it was impossible to put them down before. The object of his Amendment was to give the inhabitants of a rural district the right to inspect and take copies of extracts, and that sort of thing. The same power was given under Section 219 of the Public Health Act to the inhabitants of urban districts under a heavy penalty of £5 or £10, and he could not see why the inhabitants of rural districts should be excepted; he thought they should have the same rights as the inhabitants of an urban district and a rural parish, and he did not think there could be any objection to the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 27, after the words "rural parish," to insert the words "or a rural district."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

SIR W. FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

I accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

said, he now begged to move to omit the words, in lines 27 and 28, "at all reasonable times," for the purpose of introducing the following words:— during the hours of 12 and 6 on any one day of the week to be fixed by the Parish Council. Without some such Amendment this subsection would be perfectly ruinous to a Parish Council. What did it involve? The right of any parochial elector to inspect the books and documents at all reasonable hours would involve the Parish Council keeping a clerk and an office which should be open every day of the week, and the clerk would have to be in attendance himself, in order to be able to show the books and documents to any elector who desired to see them. That he considered was absurd for a rural parish, and he even thought that his Amendment went too far, that six hours in a week was too much, but he put in that form in hopes of getting it agreed to, and then perhaps they might reduce those hours on Report. As the clause stood it was perfectly absurd. They would have to pay this man a pound a week, which would mean £50 a year for every rural parish, and they would also have to have an office where he could attend.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, lines 27 and 28, to leave out the words "at all reasonable times," and insert the words "during the hours of 12 and 6 on any one day of the week to be fixed by the Parish Council."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

thought some arrangement might be made for limiting the time; still, he thought the hours fixed by the hon. Member were rather inconvenient. Perhaps the hon. Member would allow them to consider the matter between now and Report.

MR. W. LONG

asked, if these documents were to be kept for inspection, without payment, at all reasonable times, where they were to be kept in order to be made available for inspection? It would involve every rural parish having an office, and he ventured to say that at present in 80 per cent. of the rural parishes of England and Wales there was nothing in the shape of an office. The effect would be that these parishes would soon be bankrupt, and would have to come to Parliament to ask for an extension of the parish rate. All that was wanted was that these documents should be available at reasonable times, and he thought that one day a month would be sufficient. If any one wanted to see the documents there would be no difficulty about it. They must remember that in a great many parishes there were a certain number of troublesome people who liked to do things because they caused trouble and bothered other people, and they were going to pass an enactment in order to give an opportunity to busybodies to make themselves disagreeable. He submitted that if they enacted that these documents should be available for inspection, say once a month, they would do all that could possibly be required, otherwise it would be impossible for 75 or 80 per cent. of these rural parishes to carry out the sub-section.

COMMANDER BETHELL

thought the difficulty might be met by leaving the reasonable times to be fixed by the County Council.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

submitted that the Amendment would have the opposite effect to what was intended. At the present time all parish books were open to inspection, but if they adopted the Amendment they would have to have some person in attendance at specified times, which would make the matter more arduous than at present. No difficulty had arisen in the past, but the Amendment would create difficulties.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

thought there would be a broad difference between the persons who now kept the hooks and the persons who would keep them when the Bill was passed. It would be perfectly possible that some such Amendment as that of his hon. Friend might be accepted by the Government. A limited time at which the books could be accepted might be prescribed, and might be much less often than once a week. If there was occasion for inspection at other times some arrangement for the purpose might be made.

MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts,) St. Albans

thought it would help them if the Government would tell them whether they intended to set up an office, or how it was intended to give every one a right to inspect the books at all reasonable times. It seemed to him they could not say whether the Amendment was necessary or not until they knew what the Government conceived would take place under this clause. If the Government would accept other hours he was sure his hon. Friend would fall in with the views of the Government.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Government did not intend to make it necessary that there should be a permanent official to produce the books. His objection to the Amendment was that hours which might be convenient in one place might not be convenient in another. They might leave it to the County Council to prescribe such times as might be reasonable.

COMMANDER BETHELL

suggested the hours should be fixed by the Parish Council.

SIR J. RIGBY

That would not do.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that in addition to the inquisitive persons who were referred to by his hon. Friend, who put the parish to expense by conducting inquiries for their own curiosity, there were inquiries necessary in the case of solicitors and others who had to inspect documents when making inquiries of a judicial character. These documents ought to be available under reasonable conditions practically at all times. On due notice being given, they ought be made available, but he thought, on the other hand, care ought to be taken not to place on the custodian of these documents the obligation to be constantly in attendance. That would involve the employment of an educated person at a substantial salary, which would be imposing a heavy burden on the parish. These documents should be placed in safe keeping, in an accessible form, without putting the parish to undue expense. He did not think the County Council should be expected to make arrangements for all the different parishes within their area without some machinery being supplied for that purpose. He hoped the Government would give the matter their consideration.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, the moment an hour was prescribed the parish would be put to the expense of providing an office with an official who, for a certain time, would have nothing to do. That would be placing on their rural parishes a very great and unnecessary burden. At all times an elector had a right to inspect the documents at a reasonable hour. Surely that was provided without the words "at all reasonable times." Therefore, if the hon. Member for Preston went to a Division, he should vote with him so far as rehired to the omission of these words, but he was afraid he could not follow him in the additional words he proposed. If the words were omitted, it would be perfectly clear that every parochial elector would have the right to inspect the documents. He would have to communicate with the person in charge, saving he wanted to inspect them, and asking for a day to be fixed, and there would then be no difficulty in the matter, whilst such an arrangement would save any unnecessary expense.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, this clause had been taken verbatim from the Education Act. Of course, this was not a parallel case to the Education Act, because the School Board had a permanent office and staff. It was right that the electors should be entitled to inspect the documents, but, on the other hand, it was absurd to have a staff. The matter would work out, as the right hon. Member for the London University said, in a common sense way. He (Mr. Fowler) was himself going to suggest that the words "at all reasonable times" should be left out, and that they should give a statutory right to the electors to inspect the documents, trusting to the common sense of the locality for providing the means for carrying it out.

MR. EVERETT

hoped the Government would not take these words out, as it might result in the custodian of these documents being called up in the middle of the night.

Question, "That the words 'at all reasonable times' be omitted," put, and agreed to.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, the words "without payment" constituted a blot in this sub-section, which was met by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government could not accept the additional words, and they believed the matter would work out in a sensible way.

Amendment (Mr. Hanbury) negatived.

On Motion of Sir J. RIGBY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 27, line 29, alter the word "books," to insert the word "accounts.

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

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

asked, did the President of the Local Government Board intend that the parochial elector of one parish or district should have the right to go into another parish district to inspect their books and documents? If not, the clause would have to be altered.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government did not mean to give the parochial elector of one parish the right to go into another. He would have the matter put right if it were necessary.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, might he, as a Member of the Opposition who was about to cordially support the clause, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill on the able and skilful manner—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he might then speak in favour of the clause. The principle of the audit pervaded the whole of this clause. He was in favour of an official audit, from top to bottom, under the control of the Local Government Board. The Government had gone as far as they fairly could in the direction of the yearly audit, and he apprehended, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, that there must be a considerable addition to the expense of the Audit Department. The President of the Local Government Board had said that the audit was not in arrear at present, still there was some danger of this resulting, owing to the vast increment of work which would be entailed.

Question put, and agreed to.

[Mr. MELLOR at this stage took the Chair.]

Clause 46 (Supplemental provisions as to District Councils.)

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, S.)

moved, in line 31, after "ninety-nine," to insert "and Schedule 1." He said, the Amendment made it clear what provisions of the Public Health Act they wished to insert into this Act. It was practically a drafting question, but it was desirable when sections were incorporated by reference that they should make it clear what the provisions were.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 31, after "ninety-nine," to insert "and Schedule 1."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. HANBURY

said, this was the section which told them how often the meetings should be held, but it was the Schedule which told them how the proceedings were to be conducted, therefore it was necessary the Amendment should be accented.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, this was merely a drafting Amendment. The Government were of opinion that the section did include the Schedule, but as two such acute and competent authorities as the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken entertained a doubt on the subject he would not argue the matter for one moment but would accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HANBURY

moved that in line 37, after the word "chairman," the words "of the Council" should be omitted. He understood some arrangement had been come to as to electing the chairman from outside the Board of Guardians, but he could not conceive what reason there was for electing a chairman outside the Council. He wanted to get a chairman who was elected distinctly as an ordinary member of the Council. There was one reason which applied to the Chairman of the District Council which did not apply to the Chairman of the Board of Guardians, and it was this: The Chairman of the Council, if he was elected from outside, would be, under this clause, a member with less power than an ordinary District Councillor, because the ordinary District Councillor would, in addition, also be a Guardian; but, as he understood it, the Chairman of the District Council, if elected outside, would not be a Guardian, whereas it was specially provided that if the Chairman of the Board of Guardians was elected outside he should be one. They would, therefore, have two sets of men with different powers. All the District Councillors would be Guardians as District Councillors, whereas the chairman would only have the one function—that of District Councillor—and would not be a Guardian at all. He thought for that reason alone they ought not to elect the chairman from outside. He had the further objection that whilst a clear qualification was required for a District Councillor it was not at all clear that any qualification was required for the Chairman of the District Council, lie, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 37, after the word "chairman," to leave out the words "of the Council."—(Mr. Hanbury.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government were anxious that the same person should be the chairman of the two bodies. They wore separate bodies, no doubt, for certain purposes. He should regard it as a lamentable state of affairs if the Chairman of the Board of Guardians when the Guardians' business was over should have to leave the chair and someone else take it whilst the District Council business came on and vice versâ.The Amendment would operate against the same person being chairman of the two bodies. Again, the Committee had now, after a Division, determined that the Parish Council might choose their chairman from outside; the House had by legislation already determined that the Municipal Council might choose a Mayor from outside, and had determined that the County Council might choose their chairman from outside; therefore they would have this one body, the rural District Council, in the midst of other authorities, under a disability. That was a reason which did not commend itself to his judgment. He quite admitted the hon. Gentleman had pointed out a blot. They had not provided in that event that the chairman should have a qualification. The right hon. Member for Bristol had already pointed out this omission, and he (Mr. Fowler) had promised that on Report the omission should be rectified, and that the chairmanship should be limited to those persons qualified to be elected on the Council. It was his intention to provide for such a limitation.

MR. HANBURY

quite agreed that it was desirable that the same person should be the chairman of the two bodies, and if some words were found to carry out that object he would willingly withdraw his Amendment. It would be a bad thing to allow the District Council to choose a chairman from outside, a person who would not be Chairman of Board of Guardians.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

was quite willing the qualification should be the same in both cases. Their desire was that the same gentleman should fill both positions. He would take care that on Report words were inserted respecting the qualification.

MR. J. LOWTHER

must once more reiterate his objection to the system of co-opting outside. He pointed out in a previous Debate that in the case of communities where parties were evenly balanced it would be in the power of a narrow majority to add to their slender majority by taking an outsider in and giving him, under certain conditions, two votes. He understood the chairman would have, under certain contingencies, two votes. He thought that system was very unsound. The Aldermanic system, which was on the same basis, had in a great many cases aggravated the existing evils. As the Bill applied to London, he thought instances might be cited, without going outside the Metropolitan area, in which co-optation had been made use of, not for the purpose of strengthening a Representative Body by the introduction of persons from outside who would add stability to it, but rather for augmenting the partisan character of the assembly itself. That, he thought, was a serious matter, and he should regret the extension of a system which had in too many instances been found to work very unfairly and badly, and he looked upon this as a blot in the Bill.

MR. WARNER

suggested that the objection of the hon. Member for Preston might be met by changing the word "or," in line 37, to "and."

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

observed that in the case of a Corporation, where the Mayor was chosen from outside, it was provided that he must be qualified to be a Councillor.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is what I am going to put in. I am going to make provision for the qualification.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

must say that if there was no qualification at all this system of co-opting would be a most mischievous one, and instead of giving a moderating effect to it would only have the effect of increasing, exaggerating, and intensifying the majority, and would make the majority tenfold worse than before, if it were had. It would be no salvation or consolation to those who feared the majority might ill-use its power unless the right hon. Gentleman inserted some such provision as that those co-opted, beside the ordinary qualification, should be Justices of the Peace, or something of that kind.

Question put, and agreed to.

MAJOR DARWIN

moved to add, after the word "Board," in line 37, the words "and vice chairman of every Rural District Council." He explained that under this clause when the chairman of a Board of Guardians was elected from outside it was provided that he should, by virtue of his office, be a Guardian, but there was no similar provision regarding the vice chairman. They had, therefore, the curious anomaly that the vice chairman of the Board of Guardians should not himself be a Guardian, and what the result of that anomalous state of things would be he could not say.

Amendment, proposed, After the word "Board," in line 37, to add the words "and vice chairman of every Rural District Council."—(Major Darwin.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

pointed out that they had already provided that the vice chairman of the Board was to be an additional Guardian, and he was not prepared to go further.

Question put, and negatived.

On the Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— To leave out all the words in the sub-section after the word "Guardians," in line 38.

SIR J. RIGBY

moved— In page 28, line 3, after the words "vice chairman," to insert the words "to hold office during the term of office of the chairman. He said, the object of the Amendment was to make this Act correspond with the Local Government Act. Where the vice chairman was elected under the Local Government Act, he held office only during the term of office of the chairman.

Amendment proposed, In page 28, line 3, after the words "vice chairman," to insert the words "to hold office during the term of office of the ehairman."—(Sir J. Rigby.)

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

MR. W. LONG

moved— In page 28, line 7, after the word "boardroom," to insert the words "and offices. He said, this was almost a mere drafting Amendment, which was designed to meet a difficulty which would not arise in rural Unions, but which had arisen in connection with some of the most populous Unions in different counties in the North of England.

Amendment proposed, In page 28, line 7, after the word "boardroom," to insert the words "and offices."—(Mr. W. Long.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

intimated that he would accept the Amendment.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, it surely was not proposed that these Councils could take possession of and use a Board-room without payment. In one case of which he was aware the meetings were at present held in a public house, and it was ridiculous to suppose that a, District Council, or two District Councils—for there would be two District Councils where boundaries interfered—should be allowed to use the room in that manner. Yet that was what could take place under the clause. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; that was the provision—they left it open to these bodies to do as he suggested. There was the other point of the Board-room, and offices being in a different county from that which a District Council represented, as in the case to which he alluded, where they had two counties coming together. He really thought the clause required further consideration.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he agreed with the purport of the Amendment before the Committee, and no one knew better than the Member for Preston that convenience would result from granting the use of the Board-rooms and offices. He regretted to hear that any meetings of Local Authorities were held in public houses, and if he had power he would interpose, but, unfortunately, he had no power in the matter.

MR. HANBURY

said, he rose to ask—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved— In page 28, line 17, at end of Clause, insert (6.) "Nothing in this Act (20 & 21 Vict., c. 32) shall affect any powers of the Secretary of State under the Public Health Supplemental Act for Aldershot, 1857' or the position of persons nominated under those powers.

Question proposed, "That the subsection be there inserted."

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, they should have some explanation of the proposed sub-section.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

was understood to say it was purely local in its effect, and dealt with the powers entrusted to the Secretary of State under the Act of 1857, which applied solely to Aldershot.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

MR. HANBURY

said, he must again direct attention to the question of the powers of holding meetings in public-houses, as he understood many Boards were situated in a manner similar to that which he dealt with a few moments ago. In cases where such rooms were used he really thought there ought to be payment. He repeated, that it was ridiculous that in cases where Boards of Guardians held their meetings, not at the workhouse or in any public building, but at an inn, the District Councils should have the use of the premises there free of charge. If the right hon. Gentleman would promise to look into the question he would be satisfied.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, a room at an inn could not be described as a Board-room at all. He much regretted to hear that Guardians held their meetings in public-houses. It would be much better if they met elsewhere. But he had no power in the matter. An Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of an hon. Member behind him providing that none of the new bodies should meet in public-houses. The difficulty was that in some places the public-house was the only available meeting-room; but if it could be shown to the satisfaction of the Government that that Amendment would not involve still more inconvenient consequences than those it sought to prevent, he would accept it. He feared, however, there were cases where it would be impossible to avoid the holding of meetings in public-houses.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he could not conceive why the Council should be deprived of the power of holding meetings in an inn. Were they going to force them to build Board-rooms and offices? It seemed to him that meeting in an inn would, in many cases, be a most economical and rational thing to do. They had here a provision empowering the Local Government Board to fix reasonable hours of meeting. He would point out that, while the right hon. Gentleman professed to give the Councils everything, he was taking everything away from them, and from the people. He would not even allow them to fix a reasonable hour under this clause. This appeared to him to be another instance of the tremendous unbending and uncompromising spirit of centralisation which ran from one end to another of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 47 (Supplemental provisions as to Guardians).

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

said, he had to move— In line 1, after "county," to insert the words "not being a county borough. He moved this Amendment in order to firing what he regarded as an important matter before the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman proposed by Amendments standing in his name to confer upon County Councils powers of dividing or grouping parishes for the purposes of electing Guardians. Those were now possessed by the Local Government Board; they were to be given to the County Councils, and that without limitation. There would be no check on the exercise of those powers—County Councils would be able to alter the areas by which the Guardians were elected entirely as they chose. It was possible that even in rural parishes grave injustice might be done against the wishes of the whole inhabitants of a parish. But the case was much stronger in regard to county boroughs, where the Town Council was not a body so superior in position to the Board for the relief of the poor in the town as a County Council was to the Board of Guardians of any Union within the county. He would not have thought it necessary to bring forward the question with reference to one Union only, because it would be impossible that individual cases could be dealt with satisfactorily in a measure of this kind; but he had no doubt that what was the case in Bristol was the case in some degree in other parts of the country. The hon. Member for West Derby (Mr. Long) gave an instance in the City of Liverpool where they had a case of a single parish covering a large area, and having, he thought, 25,000 electors, and returning 15 Guardians. That was a very important district, and he asked was it right that the Town Council of Liverpool should have power to divide the parish as it chose, and to deal with the matter in the way that was here proposed? If such power was to be given he thought it would give the control of the administration of the Boor Law into the hands of the Town Council. He did not wish to go further, but he thought they ought to have some statement as to the reason for which this proposal was brought forward. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "county," to insert the words "not being a county borough."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, the Local Government Board already possessed those powers. They now proposed that they should be conferred on the Councils in the counties and the Councils in the boroughs. This was necessary in consequence of the alteration made in the Boor Law system, and although the cases mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were peculiar in some of their aspects, he did not see why they should not give the powers which were proposed. He did not know that in the case of Liverpool the Guardians were dissatisfied with the proposal of the Government. There was a great fear in 1888 of the County Councils doing unwise things. That dread had passed away, and confidence had taken its place; and he should be glad to have a great many restrictions done away with, as he believed the Councils were hampered by those restrictions. He was not such an advocate of centralisation as had been supposed. Every one was aware of the enormous difficulty of bringing the Act into operation and of the cause of the difficulty. The difficulty was enormous. They wanted the County Council to be the machinery for dividing the parishes into wards. This would have to be done promptly, and the Councils should not be hampered by delay or the possibility of appeal to the Local Government Board. It seemed to him that this was the most practical way of meeting the difficulty that existed.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman unnecessarily; but he would point out that he did not raise the question specifically as to the rural districts. What the right hon. Gentleman had said strengthened the view he entertained with regard to empowering one Elected Body to do as it liked with another Elected Body drawn from a very considerable area. It appeared to him that that was not a reasonable proposition, and he had been requested by those who were convinced of the danger in the case of Bristol to bring the question before the right hon. Gentleman, with a view to securing that, so far as that city was concerned, the power should be retained by the Local Government Board.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he apologised if he did not quite deal with the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman. They were now introducing the ballot, and he asked the Committee to imagine the difficulty of voting for a paper with 30 or 40 names. It was absolutely impossible to deal with the county boroughs unless they had a division of wards. In his own town (Wolverhampton) the Guardians were elected en bloc. It was time that system was brought to an end; and it seemed to him that these Councils were the proper authority to bring the Bill into operation. This was the main question—who was to bring the Bill into operation? If the Local Government Board, they would have to rely on local information, and that would involve delay. It seemed to him that the local Councils were the best and most practical authorities for bringing the Bill into operation. They must have some tribunal; and he really did not understand that they could suggest a better authority than that which at present existed.

MR. W. LONG

said, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman perceived the difficulty in the case of Liverpool. He said that the Guardians there were satisfied with the proposal of the Government.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

So I understood.

MR. W. LONG

said, nevertheless there was a real difficulty. There was a case in Liverpool where the Union was situated in more than one county, and how were they to have more than one County Council adjusting the Boards? The right hon. Gentleman would probably tell them that, in that case, a joint committee could be appointed to meet any difficulty; but if such a committee were appointed, they would have members of one County Council interfering in matters that really concerned another County Council. They had not, he submitted, the same conditions in Liverpool that existed elsewhere; they would not have everything ready for their division as in other places. They would have to make provision for the future, so that whatever wards they made should be coincident; but he would point out that it did not follow that the joint committee representing two counties would take the same view as the City Council took upon the division that ought to be made, and difficulties would arise. He thought it might be more convenient if Inspectors were appointed to do all that was necessary.

MR. STOREY

said, he understood the right hon. Member for Bristol to object to the County Borough Authorities interfering in this matter.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, his objection was to entrusting the whole of the arrangements for the election of one Elected Body to another Elected Body drawn from the same area. No doubt there was a difference in the ease of the County Council and the rural parishes.

MR. STOREY

said, if the county boroughs were to be trusted at all they might be trusted to do this work better than any other authority could do it. They were better informed upon all points, and they could deal with such questions as boundaries much better than any other authority. He thought it was very desirable that the wards for Guardians and for municipal purposes should be the same. Speaking for himself, he thought the plan of the Government in this matter was the best they could have. Some authority must do the work, and the authority chosen was, he believed, the best. He would just point out that there was no compulsion in the case of Liverpool to make the change. They could do it if they liked, or they could wait until some convenient time, as when the city was divided into wards.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, overlapping was the most difficult part of the question. It seemed to him the clause applied chiefly to the rural districts, and where there was overlapping the authorities might be brought into conflict. Yet it appeared to be difficult to see how the question could be dealt with in any other way. There were powers under the Act of 1888 to alter the division of rural districts under the County Council without any right of appeal. That was one of the cases in which there was no appeal under the Act, and that circumstance was worthy of consideration now. If they were to choose an authority which would be likely to form wards which would be useful both for municipal and Poor Law purposes, the best authority would be the Municipal Authority. He did not for an instant believe that these joint committees were likely to be controlled by the ideas of gentlemen who might be said to represent the county at large. The members would be bound to consult the opinions of each other. It would be important to see that the Guardians were kept in fair proportions between the urban and rural areas. On the whole, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was well advised in adhering to his proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 28, line 20, leave out "an. Line 20, leave out "under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, be desired to move to leave out part of Sub-section 1 and the whole of Sub-section 2, the latter of which contained the phrase "grouping." Many hon. Members had complained of the sub-section, and the original form attached to the phrase "grouping." The object of the Amendment was to render the matter clear. He adhered to the principle of the original proposal, but had borrowed the phraseology of the existing law.

Amendment proposed, In page 28, to leave out all after the second "for," in line 22, to end of line 32, and insert the words "those purposes may exercise powers of adding parishes to each other and dividing parishes into wards similar to those which by the Act5 relating to the relief of the poor are, for the purpose of the election of Guardians, vested in the Local Government Board. (2.) The Council of each county shall, for the purpose of regulating the retirement of Guardians or Rural District Councillors, and in order that as nearly as may be one-third of the persons elected as Guardians for the Union and one-third of the persons elected as Rural District Councillors for the district shall retire in each year, direct in which year or years of each triennial period the Guardians or District Councillors for each parish, ward, or other area in the Union or rural district shall retire. (3.) Where a Poor Law Union is situate in more than one county, the power under this section of fixing or altering the number of Guardians or Rural District Councillors and of regulating the retirement of Guardians and of District Councillors, shall be exercised by a joint committee of the Councils of the counties concerned, but it any of those Councils do not, within two months after request from any other of them, appoint members of such joint committee, the members of the committee actually appointed shall act as the joint committee. Provided that if any Order under this subsection is, within six weeks after the making thereof, objected to by any of the County Councils concerned, or by any committee of any of those Councils authorised in that behalf, it shall be of no effect until confirmed by the Local Government Board"—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, the clause as it stood in the Bill contained a restriction. Sub-section 2, which it was proposed to omit, was as follows:— (2.) In such grouping regard shall be had to the population of the parishes, but a small parish shall not be grouped by reason only that in a larger parish the proportion of population to each Guardian or Rural District Councillor is greater, and the number of Guardians or Rural District Councillors of a large parish shall not necessarily be proportioned to the number of its population. In the Amendment it was proposed to enact there was no such restriction as this on the operation of grouping. He would ask if in the existing law which the Local Government Board had power to administer there was any such restriction? If not an injustice would be done.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the word "grouping" had been used in a different sense in another part of the Bill. It was considered objectionable as leading to misapprehension, and they therefore proposed to give it up. There were in Acts for the relief of the poor powers limited to adding a parish to an adjoining parish for the purpose of the election of Guardians and dividing a parish for the same purpose. They had thrown over the idea of grouping, and confined themselves to the powers given to the Local Government Board in those Acts for the relief of the poor.

Question put, and negatived.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, he wished to move the insertion after the word "Board," at the end of the fifth line in the proposed Amendment, the words— Provided that in a rural district, and in an urban district other than a borough, the district wards for the election of Guardians shall, as far as practicable, be the same as the district wards for the election of Councillors; and provided that, when a parish is divided into wards, under the provisions of this section, or of any previous Act, for the purpose of electing Guardians of the parish, and also into parish wards under the provisions of the 17th section of this Act for the purpose of electing Parish Councillors, the boundaries of wards for the election of Guardians shall be boundaries of parish wards, but wards for the election of Guardians may be subdivided for the purpose of forming parish wards. The object of the Amendment was clear. It was to provide that there should be as little confusion in the various areas created by the Bill as possible. Under the Bill there would be wants of parishes, wards for the election of District Councils, and wards for the election of Guardians, and it did not appear to him that there had been sufficient precaution taken that those wards should not overrun each other. Under the 17th section parish wards were created, and there was nothing whatever within the measure to say that they should not overlap or cut the wards for Boards of Guardians. He knew that under the Act of 1888 there was a clause setting forth that the areas for local government purposes should not bisect each other more than could be helped; but the Act of 1888 did not apply to the 17th clause of this Bill, nor did it apply to the proposed Amendment they were now discussing. His first proposition was to make the wards for the election of District Councils and the election of Guardians as nearly as possible alike. It was impossible that they should be exactly alike, but it seemed to him desirable that words should be put in to indicate that they should be as nearly alike as possible. He was not sure whether the wards for Rural District Councils would be the same as the wards for Guardians; but in an earlier part of the Bill they had declared that the rural districts and the Guardians should be similar in number, and he wished to provide the officials should be elected in the same areas. If those words were not necessary they could be struck out. The second proviso was as to parish wards, which would be created for the first time. It seemed to him desirable that the boundaries of these wards should not bisect the wards of the Guardians; but it might often be necessary that the parish wards should be smaller than the wards of the Guardians; therefore he proposed to enact that the boundaries of the parish wards should be the boundaries of the district wards, but that the district wards might be cut up for the purpose of forming parish wards. This was a very complicated question, and be bad only put down his Amendment to secure that the matter should be considered, and that precautions should be taken to prevent the areas from interfering with each other. If the words of his Amendment were not well chosen, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would undertake to deal with the matter, he (Major Darwin) would withdraw his proposal, because he felt that it was almost too complicated a matter for an amateur draftsman to deal with. He had, however, done his best, and he now moved his Amendment.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, After the word "Board," in line 5, to add the words "Provided that in a rural district, and in an urban district other than a borough, the district wards for the election of Guardians shall, as far as practicable, be the same as the wards for the election of Councillors; and provided that, when a parish is divided into wards, under the provisions of this section, or of any previous Act, for the purpose of electing Guardians of the parish, and also into parish wards under the provisions of the 17th section of this Act for the purpose of electing Parish Councillors, the boundaries of wards for the election of Guardians shall be boundaries of parish wards, but wards for the election of Guardians may be subdivided for the purpose of forming parish wards."—(Major Darwin.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said that, so far as rural District Councils were concerned, the Amendment was quite mi necessary. The number of Councillors in each parish or each area would be the same as the number of Guardians in each parish or area. But he objected to the Amendment on other grounds. They were now proposing to intrust to the County Councils and the Municipal Authorities in boroughs certain duties, and the hon. and gallant Member would propose to fetter them in the discharge of those duties. There might be a little difficulty in the case of the rural districts, but in urban districts the Guardians wore chosen from areas which were not based upon particular parishes. The Local Authority was familiar with all the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, was the most competent authority to deal with the matter. He himself was content, and be would ask the Committee to be content, to leave these difficult duties to the existing Local Authorities who were on the spot, who knew all the facts of the case, and who, no doubt, would make the areas the same wherever they could do so.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, be hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not press his Amendment so as to anticipate the discussion which would come on the second sub-section of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. The hon. and gallant Member's Amendment would create different ward divisions from those already in existence. It would be putting the cart before the horse to discuss the Amendment.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, that his object might be met in other ways, but the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was not on the Paper when he (Major Darwin) put down his proposal. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would leave the hands of the Local Authorities freer than they would have been left under the Bill as originally drafted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR C. W DILKE

said, he now proposed to ask the Committee to omit Subsection (2) of the proposed reconstructed clause. They had on two former occasions discussed this question, and each time the Government had been supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and, in spite of that support, had had but small majorities in the Divisions. The hon. Member who sat on the Front Bench opposite (Mr. W. Long) had voted with the Government on the first of those occasions, but in his speech he had pointed out with great force the great difficulty and actual impracticability of making the detailed arrangement which he rather accepted from the Government tentatively than finally approved of. Probably on further careful examination of what was likely to occur in the working out of the Government proposal the hon. Member would find reason to change the opinion he formerly expressed. He could only deal satisfactorily with this question by putting concrete cases, because it was, of course, so highly technical that it was difficult to discuss on general principles. He would, therefore, take the common case of a London parish to which the clause would apply, and which was divided into two or three sets of wards. Many of these parishes constituted one Union each, so that the additional difficulty of parish boundaries, which complicated the matter in country districts, would not further complicate the case of Loudon, which was complicated enough already. Suppose a parish with three sets of wards—one set for Parliamentary, another for Vestry, and the third for Guardian election purposes. Under the Bill the Government hoped to get a common Register for all these election purposes, and yet at the very moment they were hoping that, they were introducing an additional complication by the division of the parish or Union into thirds, because in hardly any cases would the wards work out so as to facilitate such a division. In some cases with which he was acquainted it would be wholly impossible to provide for the retirement of the Guardians in thirds without the creation of new wards for Guardian election purposes totally distinct from the Parliamentary or local government or Vestry wards. He was not wedded to the principle of retirement by thirds, and he saw such immense difficulties in the way of carrying out that principle that if he were in favour of it he would renounce all hope of being able to carry it out. Was it probable that in any case these wholly now wards, artificially created for Guardian election purposes, would also be convenient to adopt for parish purposes or Parliamentary purposes? Then, as to the possibility of bringing the Act into rapid operation. If this solution were adopted they would have to make brand-new wards for the purpose of people retiring by thirds, and was it likely that they would be able to do this and to arrange the Parliamentary wards and the local government wards to suit, so that the arrangement for new wards, which would completely upset the Register for the year, could be carried out in time for the election? Such a thing was inconceivable. He would not go into the general question of the advisability of retiring by thirds. It was possible that good ground might be shown for treating the urban districts and London in this matter in a different manner from the ordinary rural districts. At present in the urban districts and in London one-third retired each year; but it was a different retirement from the thirds contemplated by the Government. It was a retirement by thirds where there was an election over the whole area each year, and possibly it might be wise to continue that system in the urban districts and in London, and have a different system in the rural districts. Whether they should adopt that course or a more simple one he would not say, but of this he was certain—that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman could not be carried out in practice. Even if the new wards could be made to agree with the other wards, there would be the further difficulty that they would have an annual election of one-third of the members in all wards for Local Government purposes, and also an annual election of a different one-third in certain arbitrarily-chosen wards for Guardian purposes. That would be an arrangement which they would never be able to fix in the minds of the people. It would be extremely difficult to carry it out, and for these reasons he considered the proposal of the Government wholly impracticable.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (2).

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Baronet draws his experience mainly from London. No doubt he is a great authority on that point, and I have no doubt that London may have to be dealt with in a somewhat different manner to urban and rural districts. We do not propose to divide those districts into areas—that is not the proposal at all. The proposal is this: Here is a specific Board of Guardians, it may be, consisting of 48 or 68 or 24 members, and we say that, according to divisions to be made by the County Councils, who are acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, one-third of these Guardians shall go out of office each year. As to large towns, in the case of the one with which I am connected there is no division into wards, and the whole of the Guardians are elected once a year. If the Amendment is adopted, when the County Council comes to deal with the matter they may divide it into six wards, and say that the Guardians in Wards 1 and 2, or in 3 and 4, or in 5 and 6, shall go out of office in three successive years, and in these wards yon would have an election once in three years, and not an election over the whole area. I am at a considerable disadvantage in arguing the case of London with the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke), because he is so much greater an authority than I. We are applying this Act for the first time to London, and I cannot tell at present how the wards may be divided in the Loudon Unions, but I believe that the Vestries consist of one parish each, and in some cases the Unions are coterminous with the Vestries. It may be undesirable to multiply the number of electoral areas. My hope and belief is that the Local Authorities will adopt the course which it is most desirable to take, the words "as near as may be" being put in for their convenience. I do not wish to fetter the discretion of Local Authorities in carrying this out, but I wish to do two things: In the first place, to prevent annual elections of entire Boards of Guardians, which are not desirable; and, in the second place, to secure continuity of administration, and to avoid the whole of the Guardians being elected, as the Leader of the Opposition said, under a gust of popular feeling prevailing at a specific moment. As far as experience goes, the retirement of one-third of the Municipal Councils each year has been a successful system. It has brought public opinion to bear upon certain questions, and I think that too much importance cannot be attached to uniformity and continuity of administration. A hundred times in the course of the discussion on the Bill it has been alleged that the proposals of the Government involve a risk for Poor Law administration. The object of this provision is to secure the maximum of advantage with the minimum of disadvantage; and continuity of administration is best secured by avoiding a sweeping change of the entire Board. We have all in the course of our lives known questions come to the front upon which a strong view has been taken by the public, which view, after a few months' reflection, has been materially modified. We think it desirable to avoid the possibility of allowing such gusts of public opinion to interfere with the continuity of the work of the Councils. We therefore divide the Unions into three lists, trusting to the Local Authorities to effect a convenient and equitable distribution of the areas. I know there is great difficulty in this matter of areas, but I do not believe it to be insurmountable. I think the County Councils will lie able to grapple with it. I should deprecate as much as anyone having separate wards for Parliamentary, parochial, and Union purposes. But I believe the County Councils will endeavour, now they have the power, to consolidate and simplify the areas. We shall always have great difficulty with regard to our Parliamentary system. I do not see how it can be harmonised with many of our local divisions. That is the view the Government take of this question. We are aware that we are inclining difficulties, but I think the Local Authorities will be able to deal with them. I think, moreover, that the good we are likely to secure will outweigh the little disadvantage our plan presents. It would be impossible to suggest a scheme which would not present some difficulty. I do not contend that our proposal is perfect—indeed, I should be glad to avail myself of any suggestion hon. Gentlemen may make for its improvement; but whatever the Committee does, I trust it will approve of the principle of one-third of the Councillors going out annually.

MR. STOREY

said, he was glad the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had raised this question here, and he (Mr. Storey) was glad to be able to second the right hon. Baronet's view. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board admitted at once that there were difficulties as to Parliamentary divisions. The right hon. Gentleman must also admit that there were difficulties as to County Council districts, because they were both modelled on something like equality of numbers, whereas in other cases they were dealing with parishes and districts which wore by no means equal in numerical proportion, and that constituted a practical difficulty. The right hon. Baronet spoke from the point of view of Loudon, but he (Mr. Storey) would speak from the point of view not of a borough but of a county. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board admitted the difficulty, but would not admit all the difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman said the gain he purposed to achieve was worth all the trouble—trouble not to him but to the County Councils. He (Mr. Storey) would remind the Committee that they were now in rather a different position to that which they occupied when they first discussed this matter. At that time the great argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that there should be election by thirds so as to secure continuity of administration of the Poor Law. But something had happened since then. Hon. Gentlemen had achieved their purpose: they had obtained the inclusion upon Boards of Guardians of four gentlemen of the olden time—ex officios who were to be added to the Boards in order to secure continuity. They said they wanted continuity. Would they secure it better by having an election once in three years, or by having a partial election every year in throe years? A Board would be elected; it would have a policy; it would proceed to carry it out. Before it could do anything or approve itself to the ratepayers one-third of its members would disappear and would have to submit to an election, and it might be that that third would be replaced by another set of gentlemen of a different opinion. Anew majority might be constituted, and the Board might start on a new tack. In this way it was possible they might have three changes of policy in three years. If the elections were all triennial, on the other hand, the Boards would have sufficient time to formulate a plan and policy and to carry it out in something like perfection before submitting themselves to the verdict of the electors. He had always held that it was practically impossible for the County Councils, without making confusion worse confounded, to carry out this principle of the retirement of one-third of the Board. There would be overlapping areas of all sorts. The boundaries were not coterminous, and could not be made so for the purposes of this Bill. In his own town he did not see how the Government plan could be carried out. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to take note of this fact: that there had been of late a remarkable movement among Boards of Guardians themselves in favour of the triennial system. Many of them had, with the consent of the ratepayers, adopted it. They had done so in his own town—a large and important district. It was said that in urban sanitary districts one-third retired every year. If Urban Sanitary Authorities had a choice in the matter would they prefer the system of triennial elections? He was certain they would not. His judgment in the matter was that the practical difficulties in the way of boundaries made the adoption of the system practically impossible. By insisting upon the plan the Government were throwing a large and unnecessary additional amount of work on the County Councils this year. If his right hon. Friend wanted to get his Bill into operation in November next the more he could lighten the load he was placing on the back of the County Councils the better. It would be an unnecessary expense and burden on the local exchequers to have these perpetually-recurring elections. If any hon. Member thought that three elections, each covering a third of the constituency, could be conducted as cheaply as one election of the whole body he was much mistaken. The expenses were largely due to the returning officers' charges, and he knew from his own experience that some day or other the House would have to take a reforming step to put an end to the exorbitance of such charges. He begged the Government to listen to the appeal made by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), and to alter its plan. If they did so, the result would be to save themselves much time and trouble and to cultivate a large amount of public sentiment, both in the House and out of it.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he had ventured, when the question arose before, to suggest that the Committee was undertaking a very difficult task in attempting to apply one and the same method to circumstances which were extremely different from one another. It was not now too late to consider the propriety of following different methods in the two distinct cases. He would ask the Committee to consider the circumstances of the County of Cornwall, where the people wore considerably scattered and where parishes of varied character combined together to form one Union. The task of dividing the parishes in each Union into groups of three so as to allow of the retirement of the members for each group every year would be one of very considerable difficulty. Was there any sufficient utility in the scheme proposed to warrant this difficulty being imposed upon the County Council? Some of them were afraid that in the important matter of the administration of parochial relief there might be waves of public feeling totally altering the constitution of the administrative bodies if they were re-elected en bloc. That was a difficulty, however, which was not so much to be apprehended in the rural circumstances of which he had been speaking, as there would not be the same susceptibility, the same emotionality, and the same varying feelings from end to end of a Union. That being so, he did not think that the reason he had mentioned was sufficient to justify the Committee in imposing on the County Councils the extreme and almost insuperable difficulty of portioning out different parts of the Unions. Coming to the Metropolis, he would consider the case of Chelsea, where the parish and the Union boundaries were coterminous. He did not envy the County Council the task of cutting up into districts a division where the Guardians wore all elected by a scrutin de lisle of the most unmitigated kind. At the same time, he saw that there would be an enormous advantage in adopting the system proposed by the Government in a populous parish of that kind, and he did not see that in a parish that was thickly populated from end to end there would be extreme difficulty in adopting a similar organisation to that which prevailed in the boroughs, or of having an election of one-third of the members over the whole area every year. If there were 45 Guardians for Chelsea, it would not be difficult to divide the parish into three wards, so as to secure 15 members for each ward, 5 to go out every year. There would, no doubt, be the risk of having the different wards constituted of the present members, bur that was a difficulty which must be faced, and which was worth while accepting. Why should not Parliament act much as it had done already in other matters, preserving the rule as it was, but not necessarily carrying it out where there was no great advantage to be gained, and where very great difficulties would result from the attempt to carry it out? Let the Government in the urban districts stick to the principle of one-third going out every year, but let them abandon it in the rural districts.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

said, he wished to give one or two specific instances to show the Government that their scheme could not be carried out without results which apparently the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) did not contemplate. The right hon. Gentleman had said he deprecated the creation of new electoral areas, but his plan could not be carried out without the creation of new electoral areas. The right hon. Gentleman said the plan might he carried out by grouping together Wards 1 and 2, Wards 3 and 4, and Wards 5 and 6. There were, however, numberless instances in London, at all events, where this could not be done, and other cases where it could only be done by cutting across the boundaries of existing wards. The parish of Bethnal Green was also the Union of Bethnal Green, and it was divided into four wards, each of which returned six members. Presumably, each ward had about the same population. How in the world could the Unions be divided into three without cutting across the boundaries of existing wards, and making the wards for the election of Guardians different from the wards as they at present existed, and would continue to exist, for the election of Vestries? Then there was the Union of St. Giles and St. George, which was composed of two wards, one returning 10 and the other eight members. How could that Union be divided into three areas without cutting across the boundaries of existing wards? The Union of Marylebone had four areas, returning respectively four, five, five, and four members. He hoped that, whatever was done with regard to the country at large, some provision would at all events be made to meet the case of Loudon, because the Metropolis already suffered greatly from the confusion of areas, and the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme would be to make that confusion worse confounded.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is within the recollection of the Committee that only a few days ago we had a Debate and came to a Division, I will not say on the exact question we are now discussing, but on part of it, and it is a peculiarity of the present Debate that it is not but in reality on a double issue, as we have two entirely different schemes for consideration. If I may so express it, we were on the previous occasion discussing the abstract merits of annual elections to a Board which exists for three years. On the present occasion we are not only considering the propriety? of that general system, but are also considering how far, if it be desirable in itself, it can be practically carried out, and I confess that I feel myself much more qualified to give an opinion on the first of these questions than on the second. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has already reminded the Committee, I and one or two friends of mine on this Bench largely supported the Government on the previous occasion. After having listened to the Debate to-night, I confess that my opinion on the abstract question is in no way shaken or altered. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) appeared to think that, by a system of triennial, as distinguished from annual, elections, the principle of continuity of Boor Law ad- ministration would be adequately preserved, and he sees no advantage in introducing the new element into the Board of Guardians by driblets—by thirds—instead of changing them all en bloc every third year, thus making a clean sweep of the Board. Well, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. Nothing is more striking and more singular than the way in which Corporate Bodies retain a kind of identity through many generations, if you keep a sufficient leaven of the old element at the same time as you introduce the new element. In educational matters public schools, Colleges and Universities, and in civil government Corporations will, in everybody's experience, retain for long periods of time the most extraordinary corporate unity of life. In the House of Commons itself a large proportion of old Members support the continuity of life. These are all examples of how that life can be transmitted if you do not have too great a change at any given moment. I shall be told, of course, that the House of Commons does go out en bloc when there is a Dissolution, and yet comes back with a sufficient proportion of old Members to continue the ancient traditions. That is true; but you never can have, and never will have, even with the greatest reversal of public opinion known in this country, such a change in the House of Commons as you certainly may very easily have in a Board of Guardians, should one of those gusts of popular feeling blow over the constituency which have been alluded to by my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Courtney) and by the President of the Local Government Board. I cannot, therefore, agree that it is not very important for the continuity of administration that there should not be too great a change in the personnel of the Board at the time of the election, and I cannot feel any security that if you have the whole body of Guardians elected once in every three years you will be certain of getting such a number of the old administrators of the Poor Law as would ensure that continuity which everybody, on both sides of the House, desire to obtain. For these reasons I feel quite unmoved in my original opinion, and I am not even sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Courtney), that the system proposed by the Government is not desirable for country districts. Of course, in districts where the population is very sparsely scattered, and there is not much opportunity of intercommunication of ideas, there is not the same chance as in districts where the population is more closely packed of waves of popular feeling sweeping over the electors. The right hon. Gentleman takes the division between Rural and Urban Authorities, as applied in this Bill, as being one between thinly-populated districts and thickly-populated districts. That division—the division in that sense—is a technical one. We have been over and over again reminded that there are under the Bill rural districts for legal purposes which are as closely packed as a division of Lancashire itself. Well, Sir, if I had again to vote on the general question, I would give the same vote as before. Personally, however, I feel very great diffidence in venturing an opinion upon the special practicability of the system now proposed. We have bad three speeches from Members who are qualifield to speak. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean, who speaks upon this subject with an authority which, if equalled, is certainly not surpassed in this House, when he tells us, when he gives us his opinion, that the scheme could not work well in London, I must say I feel myself over bold in venturing to express hesitation in agreeing with the opinion which the right hon. Baronet has expressed with so much confidence and knowledge. I want the Committee, before deciding upon the practicability of the scheme, to understand that it is necessary that the division should be even, or nearly even—I believe the right hon. Baronet said equal. Proportionate equality must be secured in order that continuity of administratration should be fairly carried out, so that Parliament may do no injustice to one part of the population as against another. I do not think we should aim at any pedantic numerical equivalent between the divisions which will have to vote in each of the three years. The right hon. Baronet has pointed out that what is to be aimed at is, not the process of creating areas, but to arrange, in a particular manner, those areas that already exist. The result of the speeches that have been made is to leave an uneasy impression upon my mind that there is a residue of eases, making till allowances, which will prove to be very refractory under the treatment which the Government has devised, which the County Council will throw up in despair, and which, if that were the case, the Local Government Board would not be able to touch. Under these circumstances, I would throw out as a suggestion whether it would not be advisable for the Government to draw their Bill in such a way as to leave it open to the County Councils to make representations to the Local Government Board its to the difficulty of carrying out the scheme; and in such cases to give the Local Government Board authority to admit what I consider to be the inferior system of triennial elections.

* MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

said, they had been discussing London and the urban districts thus far. He would venture to ask the Committee to consider the case of the rural districts. He did not see why the Guardians of it district should be divided into three blocks. They could not compare the rural with urban districts which were confined within a very much smaller area. They were not at all identical. The interests were not identical. If he might take an instance, he would mention a district in his own county one part of which was agricultural and the other mining or industrial. In such a case they would have all the Guardians in the agricultural area of the district going out in one year, and the whole of those in the mining area of the same district going out in another year, so that they would not get a proper expression of the opinion of the ratepayers, and there would be no continuity of policy. They had had the experience of the County Councils, and with triennial election they had obtained uniformity since the Act of 1888 was passed; yet the Government now proposed to multiply the number of elections under the present Bill. It seemed to him that they would, at this rate, soon have to adopt in England the objectionable American system of voting by the ticket. He hoped the President of the Local Government Board would see his way not to treat rural districts as he proposed to treat such districts its in and around Wolverhampton. There was no similarity at all between the two classes of cases. He thought they ought to have different treatment if possible, and he hoped the Amendment would be pressed.

MR. RATHBONE (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)

said, the great difficulty would be to get people to take an interest in these elections, and that the difficulty would be increased by the multiplicity of the elections. That opinion was based upon experience. They would find more interest taken in the elections if they were held every three years than if they had many elections, lie would urge upon the Government the necessity for less frequent elections.

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

said, he would very much like to urge upon the Government that they should exempt Loudon, at any rate, from the clause as it stood at present. He did not wish to discuss the abstract question of Guardians going out as a whole every three years, or one-third every year. In voting as he did, for the whole of the Guardians going out at the end of three years, he knew that he was supported by the almost unanimous resolution of the County Council. He wanted to take the practical difficulty that would arise in London. The great difficulty in London was that for one election they had one set of wards, for another election a second set, and for another election a third set of wards; but when this clause came into operation they would split up those very places in which the wards were coincident, as in Bethnal Green, which was one of the few places in London where the wards were the same for all purposes, and the Jesuit would be to make confusion worse confounded. They ought in London to aim at the unification of wards for all purposes. The representatives—the Guardians—could then go out together, and that would be a great convenience; but if they were to have triennial elections, let them not complicate matters. He therefore urged the exemption of London, for which some special arrangement on the lines he suggested should be made.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he fully recognised the difficulties of the case, and he could not deny it. He considered the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition worthy of consideration—namely, that they should not adopt cast-iron rules, but indicate to the County Councils the policy which the Government thought best to be adopted, without making it obligatory upon them to adopt that policy. He was, therefore, prepared to move to omit the word "shall" and to insert "may," and in some way to modify the words relating to one-third. The Government did not mean that exactly one-third should retire, but that there should be a change.

MR. W. LONG

said, the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was undoubtedly worthy of consideration. It was in conformity with the opinion expressed on that (the Opposition) side of the House. But he would desire to put out that if the change suggested by the right hon. Gentleman were made, a great deal would depend upon changes to be introduced on Report in the clauses already passed. Many Boards of Guardians had already decided what would be the period for which they were to be elected. Was it contemplated that County Councils should override those decisions, and in cases where the Board of Guardians ran into two or more counties, was the joint committee of the Boards of Guardians to decide? It was a very difficult question for such a body to decide. But a suggestion in the direction indicated by the right hon. Gentleman afforded a simple solution of the difficulty. He (Mr. Long) held the same views as before on this question, lie attached great importance to the continuity of policy. They had had a change, as the hon. Member for Sunderland said, since the question was brought before them. By the arrangement which had been alluded to the Boards were to have the advantage of deciding that certain members of the old bodies could occupy seats—

MR. H. H. FOWLER

If they choose to decide.

MR. W. LONG

said, yes, of course; if they could have the chance he presumed they would avail themselves of it. That minimised his (Mr. Long's) opposition to that part of the Bill. He might say, however, that it seemed to him a very serious thing to exempt London from the clause, and to apply the clause there in a different way from that which would obtain in other parts of the country. This suggestion as regarded London had been made very hurriedly. It was a very important question, and the attitude of the Government indicated a new departure. He would simply point out that, while disposed to consider favourably the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, they must guard against anomalies.

MR. J. STUART

said, so far as he understood it, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman met the whole circumstances of the case. He understood that they would, on Report, have to go back upon Clause 19, in which it was said that the term of office of Guardians should be for three years, and that one-third, as nearly as might, be, should go out of office each year. He presumed that the term of throe years would remain, and that each County Council would have power to arrange—first, whether the whole of the Guardians should go out every three years, or, secondly, if they arranged that a portion should so out each year, how that portion should be determined. He understood that to be the situation, and he thought it was a thoroughly satisfactory one from the point of view of the London Members, who held the same opinion as himself.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would like to call attention to the very extraordinary position in which the Committee was placed. The strongest interest was felt in Clause 19, and after a long Debate it was agreed that the system of triennial elections should be adopted for Boards of Guardians, and that one-third of the number should retire every year. At the time he pointed out the extreme difficulty of carrying out that arrangement, but it was adopted. Under a subsequent arrangement, the attendance of Members had fallen off, and now, at a time of the evening when the attendance was the thinnest, the plan of which the Committee had formerly approved was completely thrown overboard so far as the Government was concerned. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No, no!] Thai was so, for it was now to be left to each County Council to determine on what principle Boards of Guardians should be elected within the area of its jurisdiction. It was not the Government or Parliament, but each County Council which was to settle how these matters were to be arranged. It might be a good principle, but it was the abandonment of legislation and of the direction of legislation by the Government; and it was done without any notice on an Amendment which was printed that evening. Did anybody ever anticipate that the County Council of London was to be charged with such a function as deciding whether the Guardians of Chelsea should be elected en masse every three years or by thirds every year? In present circumstances the Government might accept this plan without Debate or Division; but he reserved to himself freedom of action on the Report stage to criticise this suddenly improvised arrangement, which was really a surrender to the Metropolitan Members.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, it was no part of his duty to defend the Government, but he did not think the speech which had just been delivered was quite fair to the Government. This was a matter on which feeling had been pretty evenly balanced, and on which previously the Government might not have had a majority but for the Leader of the Opposition. The Division was taken upon the question of principle rather than that of practicability, but, the practicability had broken down, and in the circumstances he did not think the Government could have acted otherwise than they had done. The Committee might be making this particular change with little notice, but it would involve a modification of Clause 19, and on the Report stage the matter could be reviewed by the House. On further considering the question of practicability the House might perhaps see its way to get rid of these provisions altogether, but for the present he did not see that the Committee could do otherwise than accept the suggestion of the Government. He asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not quite understand the position of the right hon. Member for Bodmin. He has strongly denounced the proposal of the Government, and has said the Committee has been taken by surprise. Substantially the Amendment has been on the Paper many weeks, although it was slightly varied in its form this morning. Suppose the Government had accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet, would the right hon. Member have said that that would have been springing a complete change on the Committee? Of course, my right hon. Friend does not believe that any good thing can come out of the Nazareth of the Treasury Bench, but he might at least treat the Members of the Government with common fairness by recognising their indisposition to force their own opinion on the Committee and their endeavour to meet the views of Members on all sides. I object to my right hon. Friend saying that the Government has sprung something upon the Committee without a day's notice. We have done nothing of the kind. The Leader of the Opposition admitted that there was a great deal to be said for not laying any cast-iron rule, and the Government thought it was a good suggestion, which seemed to meet the difficulties of London as well as of the country. Of course, everyone will have a right to the further consideration of the question on the Report stage.

SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, the Government had made a concession, for which he thanked them; but as they had given a certain elasticity to their original proposals, he would suggest that they should carry that elasticity somewhat further. The circumstances of Unions were widely different. Some Unions preferred annual elections and other Unions triennial elections; and he did not see why every Union should not be allowed to adopt the system which suited them best. He was afraid that the Poor Law Authorities throughout the country were singularly unprepared to put the Bill into operation. He had made inquiries in Unions in the North; and though the population were intelligent and took a deep interest in public affaire, they were not prepared to deal with this subject, because they were not acquainted with the details of the Bill. That was a good argument for delay. He also hoped that each Union would be given the power to act in the matter as it thought best in its own interest.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had complained of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin for criticising his action with regard to this Amendment. He was bound to say that he thought that criticism was just, for the right hon. Gentleman had put an Amendment on the Paper and had now thrown it over. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No, no!] The whole principle of the Amendment had been changed. Instead of the principle laid down in the Amendment, they would now have one county deciding one way and another county deciding another way. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, but both could not be the best plan. Therefore, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not only damaged the Bill, but damaged it hastily, without that due consideration which such a very important point required. He laid the greatest store on some of the Guardians going out every year. It was not a question of upsetting, as it might be when the Guardians retired all at once at the end of the third year; but there was such a thing as modifying a policy and preventing it going into extremes, which was what he aimed at. He would give an illustration from the City of Birmingham. They had had in the Corporation a water scheme involving five millions of money, and if the Council had gone out only once in three years that scheme would have been begun and perhaps carried through without having undergone any criticisms at elections. But the system of early elections afforded opportunities for the early criticism of the scheme by the ratepayers. In the same manner a large and important scheme might be undertaken by a District Council, and if the Councillors were not to go out for three years that; scheme might be carried through without having gone through the healthy ordeal of popular criticism at elections. Then, again, at the time of elections there might be some local event—such as a strike—which might colour for three years the whole of the representation of the district. In the interest of good, moderate, steady administration, free from extreme changes, it was necessary that a third of the representatives of the district should go out of office every year, for it was only under such an arrangement could the policy of the Council, or any undertaking which the Council might have in hand, be subjected to wholesome public criticism. The experience of the 250 boroughs in England and Wales was that the system of a third of the Councillors going out of office every year was most beneficial. That being so, why should they not extend a principle which they knew to be good to those new bodies, especially as that principle had been admitted to be good by the great majority of the Committee? The difficulties which had arisen as to the application of the principle were only imaginary—at least, they could be overcome in several ways, and they ought not to weigh for one moment against the advantages of the scheme which was now in practice.

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

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, that though very unwilling to prolong this Debate by a single moment, yet he rose to offer a few words of explanation really of a quasi-personal character. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that about an hour ago the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill eluded him somewhat pointedly with Inning advocated with all the force at his command the plan of triennial elections without any provision for the retirement of one-third of the members each year. The right hon. Gentleman said he was not going to have that plan; that ho looked for better things; but now he had come over a very long way in his (Sir R. Temple's) direction, and, in fact, would end by coming over altogether to their side. In proof of that he might cite the very strong speech made just before dinner by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), which (dearly showed that the provision for one-third retiring had been mainly, if not entirely, abandoned. but what were the great reasons for this plan of triennial elections simpliciter? He had stated them in this House more than once—he thought twice or thrice—and, being anxious not to repeat himself, he should refrain from reiterating them; but for the merits of his plan, or the plan of those who thought with him, be might refer to the many advantages given this very afternoon by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and he was sure he could not improve on that defence of the plan. Then why had the right hon. Gentleman—he meant the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—come so largely over in their direction? Because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke) showed unanswerably that the plan was not practicable in many important parts of the country, and Ministerialist Members wore so struck with the weight and knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that it was doubtful whether the Government could carry the plan of one-third retiring annually; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman made a virtue of necessity. But now what had actually happened? He hoped he had understood rightly; but it seemed to be this: that the County Councils were to decide as to which of the District Councils were to have the plan of one-third retiring. He believed he understood that rightly. The right hon. Gentleman's silence seemed to give consent. It had been shown that it would never do to have different plans in different places, for one County Council might adopt it, and not another. The London County Council might act in one part of London and not in another. With all this conflict of practice they would have bad results. It seemed to him to come to this: that they should arrive at the old adage about two bites at a cherry. The President of the Local Government Board had come over so far in their direction that he apprehended he would have to come over altogether. It was impossible to have this diversity of practice. This was one of the matters in which there must be uniformity, and he trusted on the Report stage they should have some further Amendment from the right hon. Gentleman doing away with the one-third retirement.

SIR J. LUBBOCK,

who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say he could not but feel surprised at the attack the President of the Local Government Board had made on the right hon. Member for Bodmin. What was the position in which they found themselves? Hon. Members of the Opposition had been accused in the country of having unduly prolonged discussion on this Bill, and yet here they had this evening a most important section which had been agreed to after due consideration as to which the Government practically executed a complete change of front. For his part, he regretted the course the Government had taken. He quite felt the difficulty in which the Government were placed; but when the President of the Local Government Board said they had adopted the suggestion thrown out by the Leader of the Opposition, he ventured to dispute that. What, he understood the Leader of the Opposition to suggest was that this clause should be accepted in its entirety as a general rule, but he admitted there might be some cases of particular difficulty such as had been instanced by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, and in those particular cases he suggested the Local Government Board should have a dispensing power. That was a plan which he believed would have been attended with excellent results. What the Government, however, were now proposing was that in every case the matter should be left to the County Council, which was an entirety different suggestion. The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Shoreditch had stated that the London Members would be grateful to the Government for their action in this matter. But, still, these two gentlemen represented but one section of the London Members, and that the minority; and it so happened that the Members from the other side, who represented the majority, were not present. The right hon. Member for Bodmin showed that London was a case in which it was desirable that some plan of this sort should be adopted in order to secure effective administration, and ho could not, therefore, understand what ground of complaint the President of the Local Government Board had against the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I complained of the attack be made upon me personally.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

was sitting beside the right hon. Member for Bodmin when he made his speech, and he did not understand there was any attack whatever on the President of the Local Government Board. What his right hon. Friend complained of was the action of the Government in suddenly actually revising in a small House the principle which had been adopted in a very largo House.

MR. A. SMITH (Herts, E.)

desired to point out that as far back as 1877 a Committee, of which the Chairman was Mr. (now Sir) J. T. Hibbert, recommended that— Guardians of the Poor in England and Ireland and Parochial Boards in Scotland shall be elected for three years. And then, on the proposal of Mr. Albert Pell, it was added to that Resolution that all should retire together. The authority of that Committee, on which Mr. Pell sat, was a very high one, and here they had a Resolution which was carried without a Division—that all the Guardians should retire together. He was, he believed, the oldest Chairman of a Board of Guardians at present in the House; he had had great experience in rural Unions, and he gave it as his opinion that it would cause a great deal of confusion to have triennial retirement, and he believed the plan would not work well.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, they had certainly got into rather a strange position. Having provided by the 19th clause that one-third should retire each year they wore now knocking the bottom out of the clause by the acceptance of an alteration which entirely changed the clause. This clause was to provide the machinery by which the one-third should retire, but the President of the Local Government Board had now taken the machinery out of the ship, and had told them he was going to scuttle the ship itself. He did not complain of what had been done; he approved of it. He looked to the practical end and working of this Bill, and he was delighted that the Government had accepted the alteration in the Amendment proposed by the Member for Preston. Of course, it would have some strange results. He did not quite know what system would obtain where the County Council took no action.

MR. H. H FOWLER

pointed out that they had different systems now with different Boards of Guardians.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, these matters would, then, remain as they wore when the County Council made no arrangement. He did not complain of that. He did not think they wanted uniformity, for cases differed, and the system of machinery should therefore differ. All he did point out was that, instead of securing uniformity which was sought by this Bill, they would have a system of variety applicable to each different case. Therefore, although he was sensible that rather a strange proceeding bad taken place in knocking the bottom out of a clause they passed some time ago, and although he was sensible of the change of front effected by the Government in giving up uniformity for variety, he was delighted rather than displeased at the result, and he was glad the Government had accepted this modification, even under sonic slight duress from their independent supporters below the Gangway.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

did not agree with all that had been said by hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House. He thought these triennial elections would be better, especially when they did not force them on the whole country, and he should very much prefer retirement by one-third. The argument that it would create elections every year was quite baseless. For a parish there was only one representative, and there would only be an election every three years in a parish just in the same way as if they went out all together. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had changed the clause, and also that he proposed to put in "may" instead of "shall."

MR. COURTNEY

said, he understood in his absence the President of the Local Government Board had complained that he (Mr. Courtney) in his speech had made a personal attack upon himself. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman he was entirely impersonal in expressing what he thought was a great misfortune in the Government giving power to the County Council to determine how every Poor Law Guardian should be elected.

Amendment (Sir C. W. Dilke), by leave, withdrawn.

In line 5 of Mr. H. H. Fowler's Amendment the word "may" was substituted for "shall."

SIR J. GORST

said, that in line 16 of his proposed Amendment the right hon. Gentleman had given a, limit of time in which the County Council was to appoint a joint committee as two months. He would suggest that instead of two it should he three months. Some County Councils only met once a quarter, and if the limit was three instead of two months it would make sure that the County Council would meet dining that time. It was an Amendment suggested by some of the County Councils, and he had put it down for a subsequent new clause, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman might like to deal with it here.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

promised to consider the Amendment with a view to seeing if it was necessary.

Amendment (Mr. H. H. Fowler), as amended, agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 29,.line 9, at end of Clause, to add the following sub-section:— (5) Where under any local and personal Act Guardians of a Poor Law Union are elected for wards, the provisions of this Act with respect to the election of Guardians shall apply as if each of the wards were a parish. (6) The Board of Guardians of a Union elected in pursuance of this Act shall, save as otherwise provided by an Order of the Local Government Board, made on the application of these Guardians, have the same powers and duties under any local Act as the existing Board of Guardians. (7) Nothing in this Act shall alter the constitution of the corporation of the Guardians of the Poor within the City of Oxford, or the, election or qualification of the members thereof, except those members who are elected by the ratepayers of parishes.

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

Clause 48 (Permissive transfer to Urban District Council of powers to other authorities) agreed to.

Clause 49 (Provisions as to County Council acquiring powers of District Council).

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved— In line 26, at end, to insert, "Upon any complaint under Section 15 of this Act made in relation to a Rural District Council, the County Council may, instead of resolving that the duties and powers of the Rural District Council be transferred to them, make and enforce such an Order as is mentioned in Section 299 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and that section shall, as regards such Rural District Council, be re-enacted by this Act with the substitution of the County Council for the Local Government Board. He said, this was an Amendment which the County Councils Association were anxious to have passed. The President of the Local Government Board was proposing to confer certain new powers of sanitary control on the County Council with regard to rural districts. He wished to point out that in their present shape these powers of control would he very useless, because all the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do by Section 15 of the present Act was to enable the County Council, when complaint was made to it by the Parish Council of the default of the District Council with respect to sewage or water supply or other sanitary matters, to pass a resolution transferring to the County Council the powers and duties of the District Council. How could the County Council, even if it thought any one of these works was most necessary in a parish, undertake the work itself? It would be impossible to expect the County Council to perform these powers and duties to a large extent itself, and what the Amendment proposed as an alternative to the power given by the right hon. Gentleman was that the County Council, on such complaint being made, might after proper inquiry make an order requiring the District Council to perform its duties. This making of an order was the only practical way of exercising control, and there was at least one precedent. Under Section 10 of the Highway Act of 1878 complaint might be made to the County Authority (now the County Council) that the Highway Board (now to be the District Council) had made default in maintaining the highways, and then the County Council were to have the power to make an order requiring the District Council to do their duty, and unless the liability was disputed the order of the County Council might be enforced. What he proposed hero was that a similar control should be given in sanitary matters by the same authority over the same authority. If the Government were really sincere in their desire that the County Council should exercise effective control in sanitary matters he did not see how they could object to this proposal. He moved this Amendment as a suggestion to the Government to enable them to make the control they proposed to give to the County Council really effective. He did not insist on the exact form, but this was the best suggestion they had been able to make. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 29, line 26, at end, to insert,—"Upon any complaint under Section 15 of this Act made in, relation to a Rural District Council, the County Council may, instead of resolving that the duties and powers of the Rural District Council be transferred to them, make and enforce such an Order as is mentioned in Section 299 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and that section shall, as regards such Rural District Council, he re-enacted by this Act with the substitution of the County Council for the Local Government Board."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have great sympathy with the object my hon. Friend has in view—that is, if I understand it aright. I understand what the County Councils want is to have power, where default has been made in these works, to order these; works to be done or to do them by somebody else. I understand the law to be now that the County Council can now, as the Local Government Board can, do the work itself, but the County Council has no power to get anybody else to do it. They are hampered in that way, and they have no staff and do not desire lo do the work themselves. This clause of the Public Health Act has not worked satisfactorily, and practically has reduced itself to this: We have no power except to go to the Courts of Law for a, mandamus; we cannot do the work ourselves. At this moment I have had to go to the Courts for a mandamus against several authorities which have made default. This Amendment deals with enforcing such an order. Well, enforcing it is the work of the Court; it belongs to the mandamus. A view has occurred to me which it may be well for my hon. Friend to consider before the Report stage—namely, whether it is desirable to give the County Council power to go to the Courts for a, mandamus. That means litigation and expense, and should only be resorted to in extreme cases; and I think we had better leave that where it is—namely, in the Local Government Board. I am disposed to give the County Councils full power of delegating the work. They may do it themselves, or they may hand it over to anybody else to do at the expense of the Local Authority.

MR. W. LONG

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would, subject to any suggestion that might be made, see his way to accept the proposal of the President of the Local Government Board, which constituted a very valuable concession hi the direction in which they would like to see the reform. It was in the same direction as was followed in the Bill of 1888 with regard to the control of the main roads. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the power of acting by mandamus was altogether misleading, because practically the power was never used. What they wanted, now that they were raising their superstructure of local government, was a power by which the authority could act without undue delay and without expensive legal process. He would suggest to the Minister in charge of the Bill that he might well leave in the hands of the Member for Fast Somerset the drafting of a clause on this subject to be considered on the Report stage, for there was no man in or out of the House better able to deal with the question. He believed that in this connection they would be able to effect one of the most valuable reforms ever carried in connection with local government.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had met him on that matter. But he wanted to understand exactly what was proposed to be conceded. The right hon. Gentleman talked about delegating powers. To whom were they to be delegated. The only Board to which the delegation could be made was the District Council, but that presumably was in default, and, therefore, he conceived that their only delegation would be either to a committee of the County Council or to one of its officers.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

What I want to do away with is the enforcement of an order by mandamus, and to substitute for it a provision enabling the Local Govern- ment Board to appoint some person to perform the duty at the expense of the defaulting authority. That power does not at present exist.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

Then the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make au Order limiting the period within which the neglected duty shall be per formed, and in default of carrying that out appointing somebody else to do the work?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

That will entirely meet our views.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Clause 50 (Saving for harbour powers).

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that under this clause Harbour Improvement Commissioners were to continue to exist as heretofore. What he wanted to know was—were they to be elected by the parochial electors?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

In the early part of the Bill we transferred the duties of the Improvement Commissioners to the District Councils; but as it was pointed out that it would be a considerable disadvantage to interfere with Harbour Boards, it was decided to exempt them. This clause simply carries out that exemption.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

But the Improvement Commissioners are to become District Councils.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes, except for harbour purposes. In such eases they remain a separate authority.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

And are they to continue to exist and be elected as heretofore?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Yes.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 51 (Transfer of property and debts and liabilities) agreed to.

Clause 52 (Adjustment of property and liabilities).

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he desired to secure the omission of the words requiring the sanction of the Local Government Board for payments under the clause. This was not a matter with which, as it seemed to him, the intervention of the Board over which the right hon. Gentleman presided was necessary, he had, he admitted, a strong disposition to limit the powers of interference of the Local Government Board; he would, of course, always maintain them where a guiding authority was necessary, but here they might well leave the Local Body to exercise its own functions. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make the concession.

Amendment proposed, In page 31, line 26, to leave out the words "from authority," to the word "direct," in line 27.—(Commander Bethell.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is a very complicated clause, and the object of these words is when exceptions are made to a general rule to protect the interests of those who have to contribute to the special funds. The provision has been found to be necessary, under the Local Government Act, in cases of adjustment between Town and County Councils, and it can hardly prove to be less necessary in cases of adjustment between Urban and Rural District Councils. I have had to exercise the power since I have been in Office with the effect, I believe, of convincing an authority which had proposed to divert a special sum that it was wrong, and that the Local Government Board was right in protecting the interests of the ratepayers. This is in no way a centralising proposal; it is simply desired to protect the interests of the ratepayers, and more especially those of the future, against the unwise appropriation of their funds.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he admitted that this was a complicated matter, and after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman he would ask permission to withdraw his proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HANBURY

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether it would not be possible to deal with ratione tenurœ roads in this clause? Could not provision be made in case of failure to agree among occupying owners to refer the adjustment to an arbitrator?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

; This clause is only intended to deal with adjustments between Local Authorities.

MR. HANBURY

It need not necessarily he so limited.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 53 (Power to deal with mutters arising out of alteration of boundaries).

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

What is the meaning of this clause? It does not appear to improve the procedure laid down by Section 59 of the Act of 1888, and I certainly thought that all proposed alterations of area under this Bill were provided for in a previous clause.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The only object of this clause is to remove a doubt which exists as to whether the Local Government Board has power to issue Orders relative to alterations of area.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

Then it does not alter the procedure?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 54 (Summary proceeding for determination of questions as to transfer of powers).

Amendment proposed, In page 82, to leave out lines 4 and 5.—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

What is the meaning of this Amendment?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The object is to enable me to introduce an Amendment lower down on the Paper, and then I shall have an opportunity to explain the intention of the Government.

MR. HANBURY

asked if it was not necessary to insert the words— or any property other than an ecclesiastical charity, in line 6?

SIR J. RIGBY

thought there was not the least doubt that the clause should in that respect remain unchanged, as questions might arise as to charity property.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 32, line 9, after the word "concerned," to insert the words "or any Incumbent or Churchwardens or other parties concerned."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I am going to move an Amendment presently which I think will cover this point, as the words will run "trustee, beneficiary, or other persons interested."

SIR F. S. POWELL

I am quite satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. EVERETT

said, he had been requested by the hon. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex to move an Amendment, the effect of which would be to substitute for the decision of the High Courts of Justice a reference of certain disputes to arbitrators appointed by the Local Government Board. Seeing that the proposal emanated from a lawyer, they might take it for granted that it would provide a simple and better procedure than that laid down in the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 32, line 9, after the word "for," to insert the words "arbitration to the Local Government Board, who shall from time to time publish Rules regulating the practice in such arbitrations, and shall on such arbitrations make an Order which shall be final and conclusive on all matters submitted, and shall be enforced in the same way as and though it were an award on a submission within the provisions of 'The Arbitration Act, 1889,' and any Act amending the same, or for."—(Mr. Everett.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

was sorry that he could not take such a favourable view of arbitration as the hon. Member did. His experience of arbitration was that it was more expensive and a more dilatory tribunal for simple cases than decision by a Court of Justice. For cases likely to arise under this section the summary manner provided of dealing with them was more satisfactory, much less expensive, and more speedy even than arbitration under the Local Government Board.

MR. COURTNEY

pointed out that the Amendment simply provided an alternative method of deciding a case. He did not see that any great harm could be done by allowing that.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

What is meant by the words "in such summary manner"? Was it the accustomed summary manner or some new manner?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the intention was to enable the Court to dispense with the customary preliminaries to actions in the High Court.

MR. HANBURY

said, he wished to point out one objection to the Amendment. Suppose the parties failed between themselves to agree as to whether arbitra- tion or the process of the High Court should be adopted, who was to decide between them? No provision was made for that.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. HANBURY

moved to strike out Sub-section 2 of the clause. He said, the power of appeal proposed to be established by it was not given under the Act of 1888, which created the County Councils, who were far more likely to be able to afford to pay the costs of an appeal than either the Parish or the District Council. It had been distinctly ruled under Section 29 of the Local Government Act that an appeal did not lie, on the ground, as ho was told, that the jurisdiction of the Court was consultative and not judicial. It would never do to give the District Councils a power of appeal which was not allowed to the County Councils. It was their duly to do all they could to discourage litigation in these small matters, and he thought it was quite sufficient to take the decision of the High Court. He trusted that the Solicitor General would agree with him on that point.

Amendment proposed, In page 32, line 14, to leave out Sub-section (2.)—(Mr. Hanbury.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'an appeal shall' stand part of the Clause."

SIR J. RIGBY

pointed out that an appeal would, in the ordinary course, lie in all these questions if the action were entered in the ordinary way, and the object of the clause was to save expense by substituting summary for the regular proceedings in an action. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had, however, on the Paper an Amendment providing that the leave of the High Court or Court of Appeal should be necessary before an appeal could lie, and that, he thought, would meet the objections of the hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that in a case between the County Council of Kent and the Corporation of Dover it was decided under Section 29 of the Local Government Act of 1888 that an appeal could not lie against the decision of the High Court. It did seem to him that, inasmuch as one of the objects of the clause was to provide an inexpensive and summary method of legal procedure as laid down in the first sub-section, the second sub-section was likely to defeat this object. The sub-section must have been inserted by some junior counsel without the knowledge of the Solicitor General. In his judgment the decision of the High Court was quite sufficient, and if any appeal should be necessary, then let it be to a jury, and not to the Court of Appeal.

SIR J. GORST

said, he thought the Government might accept the Amendment. The section establishing a cheap and summary method of procedure was a permissive one, and if the parties wished to appeal all they had to do was to enter their action in the High Court in the ordinary way, and then an appeal would lie.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the observations of the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Cambridge University showed how necessary it was that there should be an appeal. If there was no appeal the clause would be reduced to an absolute nullity. If parties were content to abide by the decision of the Court of first instance there would be no appeal, bur, if an appeal was necessary, action must be taken so long as the right of appeal existed. The Government's intention was to cheapen the procedure, and the only way in which they could make this intention effectual was to give a, limited right of appeal, with the consent of the High Court. To strike out the sub-section would render the first sub-section practically inoperative.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to the Government proposal. Matters may arise under this Act relating to the position of charities which may be of such importance as to necessitate an appeal.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

said, he hoped that the Amendment would not be pressed. As the Solicitor General had pointed out, alternative processes were provided for under the, section, one being by action in the ordinary way, and the other by summary process. Not infrequently there would be important questions to determine under the Act, and if they expected litigants to take the cheap and short process they must enable them to have an appeal, at least, with the leave of the Court. His own inclination was not even to require the leave of the Court, because he believed there was already ample protection against unfounded appeals. If the sub- section (2) were omitted the result would be that in 99 cases out of 100 the parties, instead of adopting the cheap summary method, would choose to enter their action in the ordinary way in order that they might go to appeal if so advised. The result of striking out the sub-section would be to increase expense and not diminish it.

MR. STOREY

said, he thought that everything they could do to prevent these Local Bodies being driven to litigation they ought to do. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he agreed with discouraging litigation, but thought hon. Members must have forgotten the long discussion they had had on this question previously. Very serious questions might arise upon charities, and might require to be dealt with by a judicial tribunal of the highest order. He put it to hon. Members opposite whether they would not be depriving persons who might have large interests at stake of an important privilege if they prevented the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

SIR J. GORST

said, that there was to be an appeal to the higher Court in the case of disputes in connection with Parish and District Councils. In the ease of charities where private rights and interests were involved there was no appeal beyond the High Court. There were no people more fond of litigation than Public Bodies, because it was carried on not at the expense of the members, but at that of the ratepayers. Everything possible should be done to check Public Bodies from carrying on expensive litigation. It seemed to him that in a dispute between a Parish Council and a District Council, the decision of the High Court ought to be final.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, he should consider it his duty on this occasion to vote with the Government and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bristol. No doubt Public Bodies were too fond of litigation, and ought to be restrained, but the right of appeal would not be confined to the Public Body, but would also belong to the other party to the suit, supposing the Court decided against him.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he thought that before they took a Division they ought to know clearly what the proposal of the Government was. As the clause stood there would have been an appeal in the case of a charity. He did not imagine that the proposed Amendment would take that away. He confessed that when he examined the Amendment it did appear to take away the appeal in case of charities.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that there was an error in the way in which the Amendments were put down on the Paper. "Line 15" should be "Line 13." The Amendment should come in earlier. The Government could not give an appeal in the former case, and not in the latter.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)

said, he would appeal to the hon. Member for Preston not to withdraw his Amendment. The object ought to be to effect a saving of expense. Hon. Members learned in the law had a taste for litigation, but the people in the agricultural districts could not afford that luxury.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 57.—(Division List, No. 411.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 32, line 14, after the word "shall," to insert the words "with the leave of the High Court or Court of Appeal, but not otherwise. Page 32, line 15, at end, to insert,—"If any question arises or is about to arise under this Act as to the appointment of the trustees or beneficiaries of any charity, or as to the persons in whom the property of any charity is vested, such question shall, at the request of any trustee, beneficiary, or other person interested, be determined in the first instance by the Charity Commissioners, subject to an appeal to the High Court brought within three months after such decision.

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

Clause 55 (Supplemental provisions as to County Council orders).

On Motion of Major DARWIN, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 32, line 18, after the word "area," to insert the words "or name.

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

Clause 56 (Expenses of Local Government Board).

* SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, the power to be given to the Local Government Board seemed to him too stringent. They could charge what they pleased—they would have power to regulate the expenditure and settle who was to pay it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he did not think that this proposal of the Bill was founded on previous legislation. It would, he thought, have to be taken on its merits. If these proceedings were to he thrown upon the Local Government Board it would be unfair to the general taxpayer if the Board were not able to make the necessary charge for expenses.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I move to leave out the words "The expenses," in order to raise this question.

Amendment proposed, In page 32, line 19, to leave out Sub-section (1.)—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, there had been no Amendment put on the Paper to this effect, and he therefore had not considered the point. On Report he should be able to deal with the matter.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, it would be a fair proposition that expenses in respect of inquiries which were undertaken at the request of the Local Authorities or in respect of matters which they had brought under the notice of the Local Government Board should be paid for out of the funds of those authorities. But the Local Government Board might initiate inquiries much to the distaste of the Local Authorities, and he was inclined to think that the expenses of such inquiries ought to be paid out of funds provided by Parliament. The Committee had proceeded so rapidly of late with the Bill that he had not had time to prepare an Amendment on the point. On Report it would be impossible to deal with the matter without re-committing the Bill, seeing that a charge on the Exchequer would be involved. Could the right hon. Gentleman limit the clause to inquiries initiated by the Local Government Board?

MR. STOREY

said, there were two observations to be made cm this clause. The first was that, as a rule, the expenditure of the Local Government Board on these inquiries was very moderate: and secondly, it would be impossible to limit the inquiries as suggested, because sometimes inquiries were rendered necessary by the neglect of the Local Authority itself. If the Local Government Board were guilty of extravagance in reference to these inquiries, the matter might be brought before the House.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that they knew what would happen if the matter were brought before the House. They would get no satisfaction, and there would be no diminution of the expenses. This clause was the most astonishing clause he had ever seen put into a Bill. It would enable the Local Government Board to charge any sum it pleased for any purpose without audit, and it would then enable them to exact payment from whomsover they chose. There was to be no appeal.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had just found that there were precedents for the clause in the Act of 1888 and in the Housing of the Working Classes Act. He must, therefore, recall the answer he had given to the right hon. Baronet.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that no doubt there was a precedent in the Act of 1888, but the County Councils were in a different position to the bodies dealt with in this clause. The Parish Councils were small bodies. It was proposed that the Local Government Board should intervene in the case of applications to the Parish Councils for allotments. How was the Local Government Board to decide in these matters unless it made local inquiries each of which might last two or three days and cost three guineas a day? Such an inquiry might absorb the whole income of a Parish Council for one year. The state of things, therefore, was entirely different from anything contemplated in the case of the County Councils under the Act of 1888. The population of one of these parishes might only he 100 or 200, and if, when they made an application to the Local Government Board and the Local Government Board held some form of inquiry to see if the application was bonâ fide, they were called upon to bear the expense, it might almost land them into bankruptcy. It was an important point that had been raised, and the proceedings of County Councils under the Act of 1888 did not run at all on all-fours with the proposition. They could not repeat too often the importance of the element of expense connected with these small parishes, and they ought to stop expense at every point. He maintained that if the Local Government Board sent down an Inspector to make an inquiry in one of these small parishes the expense should be borne by the Local Government Board. At any rate, it should not be thrown on the parishes, most of whom could ill afford to pay it. To his mind, if the expense of these inquiries was thrown on the parishes it would stop many proceedings in relation to the granting of allotments—unless, indeed, it were only necessary for the Parish Council to write to the Local Government Board saying—"We want such and such allotments," and the Local Government Board were to reply—"Very well, take them," without attempting to make an inquiry on the spot. The expense of an inquiry might run up to—20, which would be a heavy burden on one of these small parishes.

MR. W. LONG

said, he agreed that if the Parish Council chose to require the attendance of a Local Government Board official they should pay for it. It was well that these Local Authorities should have before them the prospect of failing in some of these applications. He desired to see kept in front of them as much as possible the fact that they could not indulge in the various experiments to which they might be tempted without having to pay for them. The practice embodied in the Bill had always been followed hitherto, and it was the only safe practice. The Local Government Board had a staff of officials which were employed for certain local purposes, and the cost of their employment was recovered from the Local Authorities in the shape of fees, or in some other form. That was the only sale system they could adopt. If they once allowed the Local Authorities to think that they could have an inquiry for this, that, and the other without cost to themselves, they would probably indulge in experiments which they would not otherwise have embarked upon. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to confer on the Local Government Board the responsibility, which had hitherto rested on Parliament, of confirming Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land. He did not know what view the Local Government Board might take of these new-powers, or what step they might think it necessary for their own protection to prevent these powers being improperly used. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite a question on another point, and he should be content to wait to a, further stage for an answer if necessary. Was some new system or procedure to be adopted in connection with the exercise of this power of confirming Orders for the compulsory acquisition of land? If so, and if any considerable expenditure would be involved, though it might not be equal to the expense of obtaining a Provisional Order, Parliament ought to be given an opportunity of considering what the proposals of the Department were. If they had no proposal of the kind to make, but could see their way to doing the new work without increased expenditure, he should be prepared to accept the Amendment.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

said, he was afraid the hon. Member who had just spoken was not a member of the Local Taxation Reform Party, for one of the principles on which that body had acted for so many years was that any proposal to put an additional charge upon the ratepayers ought to be withstood. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division had entirely thrown over that principle. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had given them precedents for the course which he favoured, but what was the use of precedents if they were bad precedents? What was the meaning of the words in the clause, "or other proceedings"? The expression was singularly vague. The hon. Member for West Derby said that if the parishes wanted these officials to make inquiries they should pay their expenses. But what if the inquiries were forced upon them? Would it not be a good tiling for the Local Government Board to know they would have to pay for them, and that such payments would have to come before the House of Commons in order that the Department might be taken to task if it had incurred unnecessary expenditure? He could not help thinking that this was an unlimited and uncertain charge to impose on the Parish Authorities. Take the question of boundaries. That was the greatest and most difficult question in the whole of the Bill, and in regard to it the Local Authorities would be very often obliged to appeal to the Local Government Board.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We have restricted the appeal.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

asked, who was to settle the question if the Local Authority could not settle it? The expenditure in this case, he took it, would have to be on the part of the Local Government Board. But these words, "or other proceedings," would take in the whole of the 70 odd clauses of t the Bill and might involve a great deal of Departmental work for which the parishes might be charged. He thought they ought most certainly to object to the clause and divide against it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that with regard to the question put to him by the hon. Member for West Derby, he would defer answering it. In regard to Local Government Board charges, he bad not gone through all the accounts of the Department, but he bad seen a great many of them. They related to a great many inquiries, some having reference to complicated schemes involving loans of—50,000 and—100,000, and he had never yet known a case where the bill for expenses exceeded—20. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that the Local Government Board were anxious to have inquiries, and that they had a large unemployed staff which they sent round the country every Monday morning to see if there were any places where they could institute inquiries. The hon. Member for Shropshire was happy in the part of the country to which be belonged. If he lived in some other district he would bear strong complaints made against the Local Government Board for not instituting inquiries that the Local Authories were anxious to have. They had a large mass of inquiries waiting to be conducted at the present moment.

MR. JESSE COLLLNGS

said, that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman was beside the mark altogether. The inquiries to which he had referred relating to sums of—50,000 and—100,000 occurred in districts which could well afford to pay the expenses.—10 or—20 were its nothing to these large places. He should like to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman The Government bail given the agricultural labourers of the country to understand that under this Bill they were going to have land as quick as a flash of lightning—

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

That has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I will show you, Sir, what I mean. I desire to ask this: Supposing a Parish Council applies to the Local Government Board for land, the clause says the Local Go- vernment Board shall make an Order authorising the hiring of land. Is that Order to be made without an Inspector in the first place going down to the parish and taking evidence and issuing notices, and taking other necessary proceedings? If an inquiry is made, are the expenses to be charged to the parish? I ask this question in con-sequence of some information I have received from an Association upon which the existence of the Government may he said to depend. I want an answer from the right hon. Gentleman to the leaflet published by this Association.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The right hon. Gentleman asks mo to reply to a leaflet published by a certain Society. I am not prepared to embark in any controversy of that kind. I may say, however, that when I induced the House to grant to the Local Government Board powers which were considered very doubtful by many hon. Members—that is to say, powers which have hitherto been exercised by Parliament alone, it was upon the distinct understanding that the Local Government Board should hold an inquiry in every case. I refer to these cases of taking land compulsorily.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 155; Noes 24.—(Division List, No. 412.)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he wished to move the omission of Subsection (2), which seemed to be mere surplusage. Sub-section (1) had given the Local Government Board the power of certifying their expenses, and Subsection (2) proceeded to say that such expenses may include the salary of any Inspector or officer of the Board engaged in the inquiry or proceeding, not exceeding three guineas a day. Since the Board had the power of certifying their expenses they might include the cost of their Inspector at three guineas a day. It seemed to him to be below the dignity even of the Local Government Board to insert such a provision in an Act of Parliament.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-Section (2) stand part of the Clause."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This subsection is necessary for the very reason the hon. Member bus given. We do not want to give the Local Government Board unlimited power. The limit which has been inserted is the limit which has prevailed for many years. The Local Government Board, of course, derives no profit from the transaction. The Treasury pay so much a year, and they have a right to say that there should be a limit. Three guineas a day is not an unreasonable sum as the maximum.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 52, line 28. after Sub-section (2), add the following sub-sections:—' (3) The Local Government Board and their Inspectors shall have for the purposes of an inquiry in pursuance of this Act the same powers as they respectively have for the purpose of an inquiry under 'The Public Health Act, 1875.' (4) Where a County Council hold a local inquiry under this Act or under 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' on the application of the Council of a parish, or district, or of any inhabitants of a parish or a district, the expenses incurred by the County Council in relation to the inquiry, including the expenses of any committee or person authorised by the County Council, shall be paid by the Council of that parish or district, or, in the case of a parish which has not a Parish Council, by the parish meeting; but, save as aforesaid, the expenses of the County Council incurred in the case of inquiries under this Act shall be paid out of the county fund.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 57 (Provision as to Sundays and bank holidays), agreed to.

Clause 58 (Construction of Act), postponed.

Clause 59 (Extent of Act), agreed to.

Clause 60 (Short title).

Amendment proposed, In page 33. line 24, to leave out 1893," and insert "1894.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 61 (First elections Councils), postponed.

Clause 62 (First elections of Guardians and District Councils), postponed.

Clause 63 (Power of County Councils to remove difficulties), agreed to.

Clause 64 (Existing officers).

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This clause is intimately connected with bringing the Bill into operation and will depend to a large extent on Clause 35, which the House will have before it to-morrow. Under the circumstances, I move that this clause be postponed.

Amendment proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, be had an important Amendment to move on line 38, dealing with the question of compensation. What was to become of that?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I have also an Amendment as to that subject, which I hope will be satisfactory to the hon. Member. It will be put on the Paper to-night.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he understood that new clauses as to registration and machinery were to be put on the Paper that night. Were they expected to discuss them the next day?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I may perhaps save time now by stating that the Government propose, so far as the registration is concerned, to introduced separate Bill to deal with that.

MR. W. LONG

When?

MR. H. H FOWLER

As soon as possible.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 65 (Duty of County Council to bring Act into operation).

Amendment proposed, In page 36, line 1, to leave out the words "in order to deal with matters of urgency."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I agree to that.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 66 (Appointed day).

Amendment proposed, "That the Clause be postponed."—(Mr. H. Fowler.)

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

asked whether the Committee would be asked to consider all the New Clauses on the next day or on Monday?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The New Clauses will be very simple, and there will be no difficulty in discussing them at once. There is nothing now in putting a clause down and asking the House to discuss it at once.

MR. W. LONG

said, the progress made that night had been pretty rapid, and must have more than realised even the liveliest anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. But this Motion could not he allowed to pass without some notice being taken of the proceedings which had necessitated its postponement. The Government were in this predicament: that, after having kept Parliament sitting over Christmas and into the Now Year in order to advance the Bill, they could not even fix the day for its coming into operation.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I can tomorrow.

* MR. LONG

said, the right hon. Gentleman must be careful even then, because the appointed day would be dependent on the legislation of next Session. Next Session might bring its own troublous days with it. He thought he was justified in calling attention to the fact that to enable them to bring the Bill into operation within the current year the Government were bound to wait for the next Session in order to bring in another Bill giving effect to the present Bill. He did not wish to disturb the harmony of the proceedings, but he must protest against the policy which had summoned Parliament at such an inconvenient part of the year, and had kept hon. Members labouring at Westminster so long and so unnecessarily. He had no wish to take unfair advantage of the opportunity which the Government had gratuitously offered him, but he was bound to point out that hon. Gentlemen opposite could not say with any truth or accuracy that Members on the Opposition side had not done their best to make this a practical and workable measure. ["Oh!"] Some gentlemen cried "Oh!" but they were irresponsible and unofficial, and he challenged the responsible Ministers of the Crown to get up and support those incoherent cries by saying that they had not done so. The progress they had made during the last few days showed that. [A laugh.]He did not think it necessary to take notice of in terruptions, which were unseemly and could not be justified by what had occurred. If hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway wished lo know what led to the compromise—[A cry of "Horn- castle!"] Horncastle had nothing to do with it.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will see that this is hardly the time to make remarks of this kind.

MR. W. LONG

said, he must apologise, but he was led into that line by the interruptions to which he was subjected. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman would agree with him that, though Members of the Opposition did not desire to interfere with the procedure he had adopted, at the same time they were entitled to call attention to what had been done. As far as the Opposition were concerned, whether in this Session or the next Session, they desired to give fair and reasonable support to the Government in carrying this measure into effect.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I frankly acknowledge the great help that has been rendered in the passing of this Bill during the last few days, and I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for the great assistance he has given me in carrying the Bill through Committee, and for the valuable suggestions I have from time to time received from him. I find no fault with him for pointing out what he considers to be the difficulty in which the Government are placed. All I can say in reply to him is, that whenever this Bill is passed there will necessarily be a long interval before bringing it into operation. Although hon. Members do not like allusions to the Act of 1888, and do not think in that case that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, yet, as a matter of fact, the Act of 1888 was brought into force by a separate Bill, and I hat is the course the Government have, after full consideration, determined to adopt. I hope that the announcement I shall have to make to-morrow will prove satisfactory to the House. We, of course, wish to bring the Bill into operation as speedily as it can safely be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 67 (Current rates, &c.)

Amendment proposed, In page 36, line 33, at end, to add—"(5) Until a revision of the county rate basis or standard for any parish whose boundaries are altered by or in pursuance of this Act, or by any scheme or Order under 'The Local Government Act. 1888,' all county and police rates may be levied on the parish as existing immediately prior to the alteration of the boundaries of such parish, and the Guardians of Unions, Overseers, or other body of persons raising or levying the said rates, shall make such adjustments and divisions as they shall deem proper and equitable, provided that if any dispute shall arise in respect of such adjustments, the same shall be referred to the County Council, whose decision shall be final and conclusive."—Sir F S. Powell.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

This clause is a very useful clause, and the Amendment, no doubt, is an important one, but I will state the reasons why the Government cannot accept, it. The county basis is the valuation upon which the parishes are assessed for county contributions. It does not show the assessment of the separate properties in any parish; it gives the valuation of the parish as a whole. Hence there will, no doubt, be a difficulty in determining upon what amount a parish, the boundaries of which have been altered either by the Bill or by any Order under the Local Government Act, should be assessed for county contributions until a new basis has been made. At the same time, the proposal in the Amendment, that rates for county contributions should be levied on the parish as if it had not been altered, appears open to objection. County contributions are paid out of the poor rate where the whole parish is liable to be assessed for this purpose. But where a parish has been divided by the Bill or by an Order under the Local Government Act, no poor rate will be levied over the area of the parish as it existed before it was altered, nor would there be any Overseers for such area to levy any such rate. These are the reasons why the Government cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

SIR F. S. POWELL

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

I understand the right hon. Gentleman to admit there is some difficulty in this matter. Does he propose to deal with it by means of an additional clause, or does he think it is sufficiently met by the clause as it stands?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That is the opinion of the Local Government authorities. If my hon. Friend, however, can make any suggestion wo will carefully consider it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 68 (Saving for existing securities and discharge of debts), agreed to.

Clause 69 (Saving for existing bye-laws), agreed to.

Clause 70 (Saving for pending contracts, &c), agreed to.

Clause 71 (Repeal of Acts), agreed to.

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.