NEW CLAUSES. (Hansard, 5 January 1894)

HC Deb 05 January 1894 vol 20 cc945-1003 945

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following New-Clause:—

§ (Duties and powers of County Council with respect to areas and boundaries.)

§ "(1) For the purpose of carrying this Act into effect in the case of—

(a) every parish and rural sanitary district which at the passing of this Act is situate partly within and partly without a county; and
(b) every parish which at the passing of this Act is situate partly within and partly without a sanitary district; and
(c) every rural parish which has a population of less than 200; and
(d) every rural sanitary district which at the passing of this Act has less than five elective Guardians capable of acting and voting as members of the Rural Sanitary Authority of the district; and
(e) every rural parish which is co-extensive with a rural sanitary district;

§ every County Council shall forthwith take into consideration every such case within their county, and, whether any proposal has or has not been made as mentioned in Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, shall as soon as practicable, in accordance with that section, cause inquiries to be made and indices given, and make such Orders, if any, as they deem most suitable for carrying into effect this Act in accordance with the following provisions— namely:—

(i.) the whole of each parish and, unless the County Council for special reasons otherwise direct, the whole of each rural district shall be within the same county;
(ii.) the whole of each parish shall be within the same county district; and
(iii.) every rural district which will have less than live elected Councillors shall, unless for special reasons the County Council otherwise direct, be united to some neighbouring district or districts.

§ (2) Where a parish is divided by virtue of this Act, the County Council may by Order provide for the application to different parts of that parish of the provisions of this Act with respect to the appointment of trustees or beneficiaries of a charity and for the custody of parish documents, but the Order, so far as regards the charity, shall require the approval of the Charity Commissioners.

§ (3) Where a rural parish is co-extensive with a rural sanitary district, then, until the district is united to some other district or districts, there shall be no Parish Council for the parish, but the District Council shall, in addition to their own powers, have the powers of the Parish Council.

§ (4) Where an alteration of the boundary of any county or borough seems expedient for any of the above purposes application shall be made to the Local Government Board for an Order 946 under Section 54 of the 'Local Government Act, 1888.'

§ (5) Where the alteration of a Poor Law Union seems expedient by reason of any of the provisions of this Act the County Council may, by their Order, provide for such alteration in accordance with Section 58 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' or otherwise, but this provision shall not affect the powers of the Local Government Board with respect to the alteration of Unions.

§ (6) Where the alteration of the boundary of any parish, or the division thereof or the union thereof or of part thereof with another parish, seems expedient for any of the purposes of this Act, provision for such alteration, division, or union may be made by an Order of the County Council confirmed by the Local Government Board under Section 57 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888.'

§ (7) Where a parish is by this Act divided info two or more parishes, those parishes shall, until it is otherwise provided, be included in the same Poor Law Union in which the original parish was included.

§ (8)Any Order made by a County Council in pursuance of this section shall be deemed to be an Order under Section 57 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' and any Board of Guardians shall have the same right of petitioning against an Order as is given by that section to any other authority.

§ (9) Where any of the areas referred to in Section 57 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' is situate in two or more counties, or the alteration of any such area would alter the boundaries of a Poor Law Union situate in two or more counties, a joint committee appointed by the Councils of those counties shall, subject to the terms of delegation, be deemed to have and to have always had power to make Orders under that section with respect to that area; and where at the passing of this Act a rural sanitary district or parish is situate in more than one county, a joint committee of the Councils of those counties shall act under this section, and if 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.

§ (10) Every County Council shall, within 12 months after the passing of this Act, or within such further period as the Local Government Board may allow, either generally or with reference to any particular matter, make such Orders as they deem necessary for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation, and after the expiration of the said 12 months or further period the powers of the County Council for that purpose shall be transferred to the Local Government Board, who shall forthwith exercise those powers.

§ (11) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the County Council that any part of a parish has a defined boundary, and has any property or rights distinct from the rest of the parish, the County Council may order that the consent of a parish meeting held for that part of the parish shall be required for any such act or class of acts of the Parish Council affecting the 947 said property or rights as is specified in the Order.

§ (12) Where parishes are grouped the Grouping Order shall make the necessary provisions for the name of the group, for the parish meetings in each of the grouped parishes, and for the election in manner provided by this Act of separate representatives of each parish on the Parish Council, and may provide for the consent of the parish meeting of a parish to any particular act of the Parish Council, and for any other adaptations of this Act to the group of parishes, or to the parish meetings in the group.

§ (13) Where parishes are grouped the Grouping Order shall provide for the application of the provisions of this Act with respect to the appointment of trustees and beneficiaries of a charity so as to preserve the separate rights of each parish.

§ (14) The parish meeting of any parish may apply to the County Council for a Grouping Order respecting that parish, and, if the parish has a less population than 200, for a Parish Council, and any such application shall be forthwith taken into consideration by the County Council.

§ (15) The County Council may, on the application of the Council for any group of parishes or of the parish meeting for any parish included in a group of parishes, make an Order dissolving the group, and shall by the Order make such provision as appears necessary for the election of the Parish Councils of the parishes in the group and for the adjustment of property, rights, and liabilities as between separate parishes and the group.

§ (16) Where the population of a parish not having a Parish Council increases so as to justify the election of such Council, the parish meeting may petition the County Council, and the County Council, if they think proper, may order the election of a Parish Council in that parish, and shall by the Order make such provision as appears necessary for separating the parish from any group of parishes in which it is included, and for the alteration of the Parish Council of the group, and for the adjustment of property, rights, and liabilities as between the group and the parish with a separate Parish Council.

§ (17) Where the population of a parish, according to the last published Census for the time being, is less than 200, the parish meeting may petition the County Council, and the County Council, if they think proper, may order the dissolution of the Parish Council, and from and after the date of the Order this Act shall apply to that parish as a parish not having a Parish Council. The Order shall make such provision as appears necessary for carrying it into effect, and for the disposal and adjustment of the property, rights, and liabilities of the Parish Council. Where a Petition for such an Order is rejected, another Petition for the same purpose may not be presented within two years from the presentation of the previous Petition.

§ (18) A Grouping Order, and an Order establishing or dissolving a Parish Council, or dissolving a group of parishes, shall not require submission to or confirmation by the Local Government Board.

948

§ (19) The time for petitioning against an Order under Section 57 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' shall be six weeks instead of three months after the notice referred to in Sub-section 3 of that section."

§ Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.

§ On Motion of Major DARWIN, the following Amendment to the proposed New Clause was agreed to:— In line 3, before the word "county," to leave out "a," and insert the words "an administrative.

§ MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)
moved an Amendment:— In line 20, after the word "and," to insert the word "may. He said, the effect of the Amendment, would be to give a discretion to the County Council in the making of such Orders. This was most, earnestly desired by the urban districts of Wanstead and Leyton, a "slip" of the former having, by a Provisional Order of 1888, been joined to Leyton parish for the purpose of forming a sanitary district. On consideration of this clause the Parliamentary Committee had already reported to the Essex County Council, and the County Council had published it, that they did not consider it desirable to alter the state of things, and under these circumstances he hoped the County Council would be allowed a discretion, so that they need not, unless they thought it right, make an Order which would have the effect of making the whole of each parish within the same County Council district.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, In line 20, after the word "and," to insert the word "may."—(Mr. Byrne.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'may' be there inserted in the proposed New Clause."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that what the hon. Member proposed was to annul the whole of this clause and scheme in order to provide for the one case of Wanstead and Leyton. The point was an extremely small one, and what the hon. Member proposed was like burning down a house to roast a pig. He was advised that the difficulty of the ease could be met.

§ Question put, and negatived.

949

§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)
moved, in line 20, to leave out Subsection (i), which was as follows:— The whole of each parish and, unless the County Council for special reasons otherwise direct, the whole of each rural district shall be within the same county. He said, that unless he misapprehended it, this sub-section would give the County Council the power of altering the boundaries of counties, but that might lead to great local jealousies and difficulties. They all knew how boundaries overlapped. The late Government had endeavoured to correct it, and they had a Boundary Commission, but nothing was ever done, because it was found that the County Councils could not undertake the task. The heartburning and jealousy which would be caused in his own county in the West of England if any such attempt was made would baffle description. As this immense clause had been thrown at their heads at a moment's notice, it was extremely difficult to follow it, and he did not know whether it would prove to be practicable.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, "To leave out Sub-section (i)."—(Sir R. Temple.)

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

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar
said, that if the danger apprehended by the hon. Member were really involved in this sub-clause, the Government would have to reconsider their position altogether. It certainly was not their intention to give to a County Council of a particular county any sort of jurisdiction to alter the boundaries outside that county. What they had to do was, in cases where parishes in Rural Sanitary Authorities were partly within and partly without a county, to rearrange them so as bring each one of them within one and the same county, and not absorb any part of a neighbouring county. It was necessary to give this jurisdiction to the County Council in the first instance in order that they might delegate that portion of their duty to the joint committee. There would be no alteration, under this clause, by the County Council of boundaries, but a rearrangement of subordinate districts so as to 950 bring each one of them within one and the same county.

§ MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
asked what would happen in the case of parishes which were partly in one county and partly in another? Were they to be divided? In case they were there would have to be two Parish Councils; one for the part in, say, Kent, and the other for the part in Sussex. He had got in his mind exactly that nature of village which was absolutely one in feeling and sentiment and one altogether. This Parish Council, however, which was supposed to do so much to bring every class together and teach the people the idea of self-government, would divide: this village into two halves and set up two distinct Parish Councils. If that was the intention of the Government it would do a great deal of harm to every single parish along the boundaries of their counties. If that was not the intention, but the intention was for one county to absorb that part of the parish not within such county, then that was altering the boundary. If, for instance, the Kent County Council had taken in a parish in Sussex, they would have altered the boundary and included a part that was in Sussex, and Sussex would have altered the boundary, losing that part which was formerly in Sussex but which was now in Kent. That proposal would be quite as unpopular as the other. There was absolutely nothing which the people were more tenacious about than preserving the boundaries of a county. He therefore asked the Government to tell them clearly what they meant. Were they going to give a Parish Council to every parish which was in two or three counties, or were they going to alter the boundaries by a side wind, as appeared to him to be contemplated by the clause?

§ MR. W. LONG
entirely shared the apprehensions of his lion. Friends as to what the effect of the proposition made by the Government would be. There could be no doubt, after the experience of the Act of 1888, that no more unpopular proposition could be made to country villages than to suggest that there should be taken, even for the limited purposes of local government, a piece out of one county and transferred to another. But he thought, whilst his hon. Friends had not exaggerated this sentimental difficulty, they had misapprehended or 951 exaggerated the actual practical effects of the transfer from one county to another. So far as there would be, in the future, relations between the Parish Council, the District Council, and the County Council, for all these purposes the transfer of the government would take effect, but he imagined that for all purposes, Parliamentary and geographical, the conditions would remain precisely as they were. The actual effect would, therefore, be that whereas a resident in one of these detached portions of a county would remain in the county for all geographical and all political purposes, for the purpose of the County Council he would lie brought, possibly, under a neighbouring County Council. He believed that was a correct description of this clause lie repeated it was impossible to exaggerate the immense hostility there was in country districts to any change from one county area to another, but, at the same time, it was idle to blind themselves to the fact that unless some of these changes were made it would be impossible to carry out satisfactorily any scheme for the extension of local government such as was now under consideration. The right hon. Gentleman, he believed, by one of his clauses, proposed that if within a given time these changes were not effected by the County Council the duty should devolve upon the Local Government Board. If so, he should ask the Government to reconsider that proposal and to omit these words, and for this reason: He would undertake to say if the County Council—with its knowledge of local feeling and its power to soothe local irritation—could not effect these changes no Central Authority in the world would be able to do it, and although the Government might think they had thus an alternative and were strengthening their provisions, in reality their alternative would not be worth the paper it was printed on. If the changes could be effected they could only be effected by the County Council, arid if the County Council failed the Local Government Board would not succeed. He was bound to admit that such a proposal as that made by the Government ought to be found in a Bill of this character, and he would recommend his hon. Friends, having stated the fears and doubts entertained by those they represented, not to carry their objections any 952 further, but he would appeal to the Government and ask them if they could not drop that part of the clause which proposed to confer upon the Local Government Board the obligation to carry out these duties if they were not performed by the County Council.

§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport),
whilst recognising the force of what had been stated by his lion. Friend, desired to say that within his own knowledge there were isolated cases where a reconstruction of county boundaries might be acceptable to parishes whose boundaries might overlap. In such cases, if power were given to a joint committee of the County Council to rearrange the boundaries, it might work beneficially for both parishes. Although these cases were exceptional, there were some which had come within his own knowledge in some of the counties, and he hoped it would not be considered that it was an absolute and entire impossibility that such a rearrangement might be beneficial.

§ SIR J. RIGBY
I did not say there cannot be an alteration of the boundaries of a county, but such a power will not be given to the County Council under this Bill. In fact, the Local Government Board already had power to alter the boundaries, and it is to those existing powers that resort must be had in the exceptional cases in which it is necessary.

§ VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)
was still a little in the dark as to the effect of this proposal. The point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee was the different way in which the parish of the rural districts were treated. Apparently the County Council was to have some sort of option of putting the Act into operation as an alternative in the case of a rural district, but not in the case of a parish. His hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division had pointed out that unless the County Council were unable to effect these changes it was past all probability that the Local Government Board would be able to do so. It could only be done by the County Council and by assent. He contended that the parishes ought to be put in the same position as the rural districts, and the option given to the County Council to arrange them as they thought fit. He would suggest that the same option which the Government gave as to 953 districts in the latter words of their subsection should be extended to the parish, and it should not he allowed merely in the ease of rural districts alone; that under special reasons they should direct they should not come under this sub-section, but the option should also be extended to parishes as well. If these arrangements could only be effected by the County Council and not by the Local Government Board it was absolutely essential that discretion should he left to the County Council to act in one case as in the other.

§ MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
asked the President of the Local Government Board if he would not take this opportunity of making some statement with regard to the case of Tamworth. It really seemed that the right hon. Gentleman had altered line 20 of the clause in order specially to meet that case, and he (Major Darwin) was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the alteration. He had put down an Amendment to alter the words "County Council," in line 20, into "joint committee of the County Councils concerned": but he gave notice of the Amendment merely to raise this question, and to give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of stating certain points with regard to this subject. It seemed to him that the words "unless the County Council for special reasons otherwise direct" never could apply to the County Council. Take the case of Tamworth. Which County Council could deal with Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Warwickshire? He imagined it must in every case be a joint committee of the County Councils concerned; and if right hon. Gentleman would accept questions, as also the Amendment he had put down it would meet the point. The Tamworth case was one of great interest to his constituents, but unfortunately he had been unable to consult them upon the actual proposals of the Government, because they had been so rapidly put before the House. As he understood the clause, if a joint committee of the County Councils did make an exception in this ease they would have a rural district in two counties, and he should like to know how it would he concerned with regard to some clauses of this Bill? For instance, Clause 25, which forced the District Council to apply to a 954 County Council in order to get permission in the case of preservation of commons rights. But the difficulty would be met if the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the amending of Clause 25, so that the County Council in that case could be the County Council of the county in which the common was situated. At present, as the clause stood, there would be real difficulty. If there was any sanitary arrangement going over the whole district, and there was any fault in that arrangement, each County Council would have to take over the powers of the District Council. The 15th clause would have to be very considerably altered. These matters could not he dealt with except by a joint committee of the two or three County Councils concerned. Clauses 15, 23, and 25 would have to he carefully considered and altered. It appeared to him that Clause 44 gave rural districts an alternative way of meeting this point. If the district were cut up by this clause they could appoint a joint committee of these different divided rural districts, in order to make provision for the different sanitary arrangements required. Would the Government say whether it was their intention that the districts should either remain as at present, as one joint rural district, or else, if separated, they could appoint joint committees in order to look after those concerns in which they had a common interest? The President of the Local Government Board could not have understood the question when he denied the possibility of such an arrangement. He (Major Darwin) believed such arrangement was possible. The town of Tamworth was very keenly interested in these were about 160 other Unions, and it would be great satisfaction to know that the Government would accept the Amendment leaving the matters to the joint committee of the different counties concerned, instead of to the County Council.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he had great difficulty in following the hon. Member; but so far as the town of Tamworth was concerned, he thought the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bristol had met it. That, Amendment provided that the whole of each parish, unless the County Council for special reasons should otherwise direct, should be within the same county. 955 All the difficulties in the case bad been carefully considered, and he could not accept the Amendment of the hon, and gallant Gentleman.

§ MAJOR DARWIN
Will the right hon. Gentleman say anything more as to Clause 15?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
We will discuss it on the Report stage. At present I do not want to go back on Clause 15.

§ MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
desired to know bow far they were altering the boundaries of a county?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Not at all.

§ MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN
wanted to put this specific point: In the case of a parish in two counties, one part of which was put into another, would the people in that part vote for the Parish Council in their own county or in the other county?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
did not quite understand the hon. Member. The Bill itself makes no alteration in county boundary. The hon. Member for the West Derby Division stated the case exactly. There was an existing power which the Local Government Board possessed of altering the boundaries of counties, and nobody knew better than the hon. Member the enormous sentimental difficulty which bad interfered with the carrying out of that power, and this bad been the great difficulty in the way of all local government reform for very many years. The Government bad proceeded very tentatively and cautiously in the attempt to rectify the mischief. A great deal had been rectified. They were anxious to enlist the sympathy of the County Council, and they believed when the County Council had this duty thrown upon them they would have the power of smoothing over local irritation and dealing with local difficulties which no Central Body had. The geographical limitations were in no way interfered with.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said that, before this Amendment was disposed of, be should like to ask the Solicitor General whether this joint committee he had mentioned was evolved out of his legal inner consciousness or was to be found in the clause? He could not find it in the clause. If it was merely in the contemplation of the Government he should like to point out that it would seem to be a joint committee that was to be 956 appointed for the purpose of this subsection by two adjoining County Councils. If so, it would be necessary for the County Council to come to some agreement, and be imagined with all these sentimental difficulties which had been alluded to it would be hard to get the County Council to come to any such agreement. Indeed, the difficulty was understood to be so great that some of his hon. Friends informed him that he need not make himself uneasy about the sub-section if it should stand part of the Bill, because owing to the impossibility of obtaining the concurrence of the County Council it could never possibly take effect. He would ask the Solicitor General if he had any further information which he would kindly give them as to the meaning of this joint committee?

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, there was in the Bill as it stood, or at any rate in one of the clauses to be proposed, perfect provision for this joint committee. The Government had considered in what cases the difficulty would be likely to arise on account of one of the counties concerned not appointing members to this committee, and they had expressly provided that if one county failed to make these appointments those who had actually been appointed by the other county were to go on and do the business, so that be thought the difficulty bad really been very effectually provided for. The section which dealt with the matter was Section 9 of the proposed new clause, which was as follows:— Where any of the areas referred to in Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, is situate in two or more counties, or the alteration of any such area would alter the boundaries of a Poor Law Union situate in two or more counties, a joint committee appointed by the Councils of those counties shall, subject, to the terms of delegation, be deemed to have, and to have always had, power to make Orders under that section with respect to that area; and where at the passing of this Act a rural sanitary district or parish is situate in more than one county a joint committee of the Councils of those counties shall act under this section, and if 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.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
proposed the following Amendment:— 957 In line 20, after the word "parish," to insert the words "and where parishes are grouped for the purposes of this Act the whole area under the jurisdiction of each Parish Council.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
intimated that he would accept the Amendment.

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

§ * SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
was a little apprehensive they were proceeding too fast. As the Bill now stood, he understood the grouping of parishes might very easily be a temporary matter; for power was not only given to group parishes, but also to alter the grouping. It was obvious that if parishes were grouped, and were on account of that grouping ipso facto, as he thought the hon. Member desired, to be transferred from one county to another, it would be impossible to alter the grouping once it was made. He thought the proposal of the Government was much safer than the proposal of the hon. Member, and went quite as far as they ought to go.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, he would explain his Amendment, which was designed to remedy a defect in the Bill. The object of grouping, as he understood it, was to bring these parishes under the jurisdiction of a common Parish Council. They might very well be asked at the same time to form part of the county district and ultimately of the same county. He did not see why parishes in different counties should be grouped. He did not think their sentiment would allow them to be grouped, and they were not likely to petition to form one group if they already belonged to different counties. He did not think there would be any case in which the objection of the right hon. Gentleman would arise, but the cases in which it would arise would be where there were parishes in the same county which might possibly be in two county districts, but which desired to be grouped for all purposes. He had such parishes in his mind. They were on the edge of large county districts and it would be no more inconvenience to them to go to one centre than another. He most strongly protested against any provision of the Bill which tended to increase the number of overlapping areas. It was a serious evil in their county government at present, and he did not 958 think they ought to do anything to advance it in any shape or form. Where only the boundaries of counties were concerned he did not think there would be any such danger as the right hon. Baronet seemed to anticipate.

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar
wished the right hon. Baronet would consider the clause. This clause they were now discussing—"the whole of each parish," and so on, "shall be within the same county"—did not mean that it should include what was outside the county; but the power of grouping was to be limited, so far as the County Councils were concerned, to parishes already within the couuty—that was to say, that all the parishes grouped were within the same county. They had spoken in their clauses of the whole of each parish and said nothing about the grouping of parishes or a group of parishes. They said— The whole of each rural district shall be within the same county, and the hon. Member now proposed that all the parishes that were under one Parish Council—that was to say, any group of parishes—should be in the same county. They could do nothing at all as to altering the boundaries, and if it was necessary to do that they must appeal to the existing powers that the Local Government Board had to alter the boundaries of a county. He thought the proposed Amendment was entirely in accordance with the view the Government had taken, and, in fact, that the hon. Member had hit the blot the Government would willingly see removed.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, he could not resist the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse), who knew so much about the question.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MAJOR DARWIN (Staffordshire, Lichfield)
said, he had an Amendment in line 22 which he begged to move.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 22, after the word "same," to insert the word "administrative."—(Major Darwin.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ * MR. H. HOBHOUSE,
in line 23, after "parish," proposed to insert the same words that had been inserted in line 20.

959

§ Amendment proposed, After the word "parish," to insert the words "and whore parishes are grouped for the purposes of this Act the whole area under the jurisdiction of each Parish Council."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)
begged to move the Amendment standing in his name on the Paper.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 28, after the word "districts," to insert the words "Provided that where a parish is at the passing of this Act situate in more than one urban district, the parts of the parish in each such district shall as from the appointed day, but subject to any alteration of area to be made by or in pursuance of any alteration of area to be made by or in pursuance of this or any other Act, be separate parishes, in like manner as if they had been constituted separate parishes under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, and the Acts amending the same."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)
said, that if he was in Order in referring to Sub-section (6), he would like to ask, briefly, whether that sub-section met the case of ecclesiastical parishes which might wish to be separated from the larger civil parish? There were many parishes in which there was a very strong feeling on this point, and he should, therefore, like to know whether such a division could be carried out?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Yes, if the County Council wish to do so.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
said, that at the end of Sub-section (7), line 58, he wanted to add some words to gel rid of what appeared to him to be a little complication in regard to one of the earlier sections of the Bill. He had handed in the Amendment to the Clerk at the Table, and if was— After "included," to insert "and until the circumstances of each new parish have been considered by the County Council, they shall have a parish meeting only. The Committee would remember that by au earlier clause on the passing of the Bill, certain parishes became ipso facto divided, and when so divided they came under the regulations of this Bill as to whether they should have Parish Councils or parish meetings only. The difficulty that occurred, he thought, was this, that many of those divided parishes, 960 having no concurrent life of their own, might naturally be desirous of being annexed to other parishes or grouped together, and what he wanted to avoid if he could was giving these divided parishes the trouble and expense of electing a Parish Council, where the inhabitants were more than 200, which Parish Council might have to be swept away as soon as the County Council had got time to consider their case to see whether they should be annexed to some other parish or grouped together with others. The difficulty was pointed out by the hon. Member for the Tewkesbury Division of Gloucestershire (Sir J. Dorington) on the earlier part of the Bill.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I must point out that this question has boon partly decided on Clause 1. Clause 1, Sub-section (3) has the same provision with regard to those parishes which are partly situated in one district and partly in another.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
submitted that the section to which the Deputy Chairman referred divided the parishes, and what he proposed was that when the parishes were divided a little latitude should be given them so that a, particular form of government should not be imposed upon them before their case was considered by the County Council. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman if he had followed the explanation he had given? because, if so, he need not labour the matter further.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 58, after the word "included," to insert the words "and until the circumstances of each new parish has been considered by the County Council, they shall have a parish meeting only."—(Commander Bethell.)

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

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he quite followed the hon. Member, and he thought it was evident the proposal was meant to reverse the decision of the Committee on Clause 1, which was fully argued on the occasion and with great force and power by the hon. Member himself, and also by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire. The Government then laid down the principle they must adhere to, and the Committee decided there should be a Parish Council in every rural 961 parish that had a population of a certain number. They had provided that the separated parishes should be rural parishes, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to break down that privilege.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
thought the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the case. He did not wish to interfere with the actual provisions, but the County Council was hound by the Bill to consider the case of these divided parishes, and unless it was very quick the first election would take place before the County Council could consider the matter; and when they did consider the case, in all probability they would annex or group these parishes.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
That does not alter the clause to which I have referred, and it would be irregular, therefore, to insert the Amendment here, and I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the matter further.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
said, of course he would not if the Deputy Chairman objected; but he might point out they were dealing with these very cases in Sub-section (7). However, he would not pursue the matter, though he thought the right hon. Gentleman was imposing an unnecessary election on these parishes.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, that with regard to Sub-section (8), he thought it was rather too wide in its terms. As it stood, he confessed he did not understand what Order was meant, except that for the alteration of a Poor Law Union. If the Government would accept those words, he had nothing more to say; but if they could not, he would ask them to explain what Orders were here alluded to. They had dealt with the Orders for altering parishes under Sub-section (6), and the Orders for grouping, which came later, were evidently not to be on the same footing as other Orders, because there was to be an appeal, and he did not want to let in any general words in Section (8), which should be held to give an appeal against these Orders in every particular case. The decision the right hon. Gentleman had conic to with regard to framing the lists made this matter of greater importance because if they were to get the areas adjusted by 962 the 1st July it was most important that some of these Orders should be more or less summary Orders, and that, no long time should elapse in case of an appeal, and he therefore moved his Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 59, after the word "Council," to insert the words "for the alteration of a Poor Law Union or a county district."—(Mr. H. Hob house.)

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

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, they considered this Amendment would be a dangerous one. Under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, appeal was not given to Boards of Guardians, and the intention of this Amendment was to confer this power where Boards of Guardians were affected.

§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)
said, this was practically a drafting Amendment, because it would not take away the rights of Boards of Guardians. The words in Sub-section (8) referred to all Orders made by the County Council in pursuance of this section. That applied to the whole of this long new clause, and would apply to grouping Orders, therefore Sub-section (18) was inconsistent with Sub-section (8). Subsection (8) said that all Orders might be appealed against to the Local Government Board, but Sub-section (18) said that Grouping Orders could not be appealed against to the Local Government Board. He understood the object of the Amendment was to define the special Orders that might be appealed against. It was a mere drafting Amendment, but if the right hon. Gentleman did not see it in that light he would advise the hon. Member not to press it.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he did not consider it a drafting Amendment, because there were many other Orders besides those for altering a Poor Law Union or a county district.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, he had not intented it as a drafting Amendment; but to limit the sub-section lo those cases which he thought the right hon. Gentleman meant to deal with in the sub-section. He would withdraw his Amendment, but in view of the subsequent sub-section about grouping, he thought some words should be put in to make it perfectly clear, and he 963 would suggest that the words, "As hereinafter provided," should be introduced.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
I should not object to that.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Motion of Mr. H. HOBHOUSE, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In line 59, at commencement of sub-section, to insert the words "except as hereinafter provided. In line 61, after the word "Guardians," to insert the words "affected by an Order. In line 62, to leave out the word "an," and insert the word "that.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)
said, he wished to refer to Sub section (9), line 64. The point he wished to raise was this: This sub-section provided that where there was to be a re-adjustment of the area of a parish which should involve the alteration of boundaries of a Poor Law Union situated in two or more counties, then there should be a joint committee of the County Councils of those several counties. So far he quite understood it, but then the sub-section went on to enact that in the event of any of those County Councils not appointing members of the joint committee the members appointed by any one of the County Councils should proceed to act as if a joint committee were appointed by all the County Councils. There might be some good reasons for that, but at the first sight it appeared to him and to others to be a somewhat peculiar arrangement. If it pre-supposed some defect, neglect, or omission, well and good; but suppose it should happen that any one of the counties should disapprove of an arrangement to be entered into, were the other counties to act without them; or in the case of three counties, two of whom disapproved of an arrangement, was the one county to act in spite of the disapproval of the other two? If so, one county appointing its members could act as if it alone constituted the joint committee. Apart from the sentimental objection of which they had heard so much this afternoon, it struck him this might create great discontent and friction between neighbouring counties. He thought it advisable to raise the question, and to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill for an explanation in regard to it.

964

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, the object of this sub-section was a common object. Where it was said that certain questions should be submitted to the arbitration of an arbitrator appointed by each of the parties, one of the parties had only to say he would not appoint an arbitrator in order to defeat and stop all necessary proceedings. This sub-section, in such a case, would enable the arbitrator appointed by the other parties to go on, and it was no hardship, as it only prevented one of the parties stopping the proceedings; it would prevent one County Council becoming master of the situation, and, by holding their hands, preventing a question being raised and discussed which was of very great importance.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
It is my duty to point out that there is no Question before the Committee.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
Then I will move the omission of Sub-section (9).

§ Amendment proposed, to omit Subsection (9).—(Sir R. Temple.)

§ Question proposed, "That Sub-section (9) stand part of the Clause."

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said, it appeared to him this was an extremely imperfect clause, and attempted to carry out what was admitted to be most difficult to carry out—namely, the alteration of the boundaries of counties. The sub-section provided certain machinery, and as he read it it was to carry out Clause 5 amongst other things. The sub-section said— Where at the passing of this Act a rural salutary district or parish is situate in more than one county, a joint committee of the Councils of those countries shall act under this section. But he would point out there was no enactment here that a joint committee should be appointed; it seemed it was about to spring into existence as soon as the Act was passed. Then there were to be two committees, because there was to be a request from one of them. Suppose no committee was appointed there was no provision to secure there should be any such committee. He conceived there would be a considerable indisposition on the part of one county to provoke any other county, or a parish partly in one county, and partly in another, and without a joint committee the machinery 965 fell to the ground. Then, again, he would ask what security there was for such a request being made as that contemplated by the sub-section? It seemed to him this sub-section could not be carried out at all, because it contemplated a preceding condition, that there should be a joint committee appointed, and that a request should be made to one from the other. As he read the sub-section, there was no provision for this being carried out.

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, that if a joint committee was appointed at the instance of one County Council against the wish of the other or others the result would probably be nil. He was advised that he need hardly trouble himself with the subject, because if a joint committee were appointed under those circumstances it would only meet to squabble and settle nothing.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ * MR. SNAPE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood)
said, the intention of Sub-section (9) was that a joint committee should be appointed by the County Councils; under certain circumstances one County Council was to appoint a representative committee and invite another County Council to do the same. But the statutory meetings of the County Councils were only once in three mouths, and a County Council might decide upon the appointment of a joint committee two or three days after the statutory meeting of the adjoining county, which would, therefore, have no opportunity in the ordinary way of appointing representatives on the joint committee for another three months. If it waited three months, however, it would have forfeited its right to appoint representatives on the joint committee, as the Bill only allowed a period of two months. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had pointed out that the difficulty could be got over by the County Council holding a special meeting; but the right hon. Gentleman probably had not taken into account the difficulty and expense to County Counciliors of getting to the town in which the Council meetings were held. He would propose that the period allowed for assent should be altered from two to three months.

966

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, In line 73, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."—(Mr. Snape.)

§ Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the proposed New Clause."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, it was true that County Councils were bound, as municipal boroughs were bound, by Statute to meet at certain times, but they might meet as often as they liked in the intervals. Hon. Members must remember the difficulty there would be in bringing this Act into operation when it was passed, and the amount of work it would involve to the County Councils. There were some things they would have to do before the 1st of July. He had been told by many Chairmen of County Councils that directly the Act became law they should deem it their duty to see that committees were appointed to carry it out. It would, he thought, be a mistake to allow the Councils three mouths to appoint joint committees, that being too long a time. Some people seemed to think that when the Act was passed the County Councils would do all sorts of stupid and incomprehensible things, and would not act as Englishmen had always hitherto acted when entrusted with responsible duties. He felt sure that the County Councils would loyally co-operate with Parliament in endeavouring to carry out the Act.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
Sub-section (10) is a very important sub-section. As the Committee will see, in the first place it provides that— Every County Council shall, within twelve months after the passing of this Act, or within such further period as the Local Government Board may allow cither generally or with reference to any particular matter, make such Orders as they deem necessary for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation. Then it goes on to say— And after the expiration of the said twelve months or further period the powers of the County Council for that purpose shall be transferred to the Local Government Board, who shall forthwith exercise those powers. Any hon. Gentleman who has followed the history of the boundary question will be well aware that, however desirable it may be—and no doubt it is desirable 967 —to rectify the areas as proposed in this clause, no more difficult or unpopular task could be undertaken by any body that may be intrusted with the duty. In 1888 Boundary Commissioners were appointed who went ail over the country and made valuable reports upon the rectification of areas. These Reports were presented to the County Councils. The Act of 1888 provided that if the County Councils thought fit to carry out the recommendations in the Reports they could make representations to the Local Government Board, and machinery was provided for giving effect to their views. What has been the result of that? Through no fault of the County Councils—and I do not think it has been the fault of the Local Government Board—those sections of the Act of 1888 with regard to the rectification of boundaries had in most cases been a dead letter. The Committee knew perfectly well why that has been so. There is no more unpopular task that can be attempted by anybody than that rectification of boundaries, either in urban or country districts. What is the proposal in this sub-section? It fixes a time within which the County Councils are to do all these things, or such of them—which judging from the past will be few—as they may think it necessary and right to do. If they do not within that period, or an extension of that period, do these things, then the powers for that purpose are to be transferred to the Central Authority. But what is the position? Is not a County Council much better fitted than the Local Government Board to judge what rectification of areas should be made? I thought that both sides of the House had learnt to trust the County Councils. I thought that had been the purpose of a great many speeches we have heard during the progress of this Debate. The right hon. Gentleman knows the history of the past, and he knows that County Councils will in the future find in impossible in many cases to exercise these powers, and will decline to do so. In the last words of the sub-section the right hon. Gentleman proposes that the Local Government Board shall not only have power to override the County Councils in this matter, but that they shall forthwith do it, whether they think it right or not. I cannot conceive a more astonishing proposition, and I can 968 only account for it by this: that I think the right hon. Gentleman must have framed the sub-section with some little guile. He must have had in his mind the idea that by the time the Local Government Board are compelled by this sub-section to do that which the County Councils decline to do somebody else will have succeeded him at the Local Government Board, and that he will be leaving to his successor in his Department a heritage which will be sufficient to turn him in a very few months out of Office. I must say that, to my mind, that is the only conceivable reason for not only conferring the powers on the Local Government Board, but also compelling them forthwith to exercise those powers, whether they think they should be exercised or not. I hope I may have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to what is meant by this sub-section, which seems to me to go far beyond the necessary requirements for bringing the Act into force, and beyond the powers given to the Local Government Board by the Act of 1888. I think the principle of the Act of 1888 was the right one—namely, that where rectification of boundaries merely in order to carry out the desire that local government areas should be as far as possible coterminous, was required in any county, it should rest with the county to initiate the rectification.

§ Amendment proposed to the proposed New Clause, In line 80, after the word "operation," to leave out to end of Sub-section.—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
I think the right hon. Gentleman lists himself given the reason why the Government introduced this sub-section. He has referred to the history of the past, and that is exactly the reason why the Government ask the Committee to deal with this matter more drastically than it was dealt with in the Act of 1888. The Act of 1888 provided that it should be the duty of the County Councils to take into consideration the Reports of the Boundary Commissioners and to make such representations to the Local Government 969 Board as they conceived to be exped en for distinguishing the boundaries of their counties and other areas of local government with the view of securing that no such area should be situated in more than one county. That has been a dead letter. The thing WHS placed on the Statute Book, but there is no power to enforce it. Some counties have made representations, but some have not, so that the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly accurate when he said that the provision has practically been a dead letter. The hon. Gentleman opposite will correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that when Mr. Ritchie was appealed to with reference to the non-enforcement of these provisions and with reference to legislation on the subject, be replied that until District Councils were established and Parliament completed the scheme of local government it was impracticable and unwise to press those clauses which had been allowed to become inoperative. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that was his opinion on the question. Therefore that provision has been allowed to remain inactive, and perhaps not without good cause, for it has never been so important in the past as it will be in the future. I quite appreciate the sentiment which prevails, and the difficulty which the County Councils will have in putting this provision in force; but I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, that the County Councils are the best, if not the only body for enforcing the provision, and it is desirable that they should undertake the task. As to the period of time, I say 12 months, or within such further period as the Local Government Board may allow. I do not wish to put further pressure on them in doing what in some cases will be an unpopular duty. But we must not forget that many of our best reforms would never have been effected if our administrators had been frightened by unpopularity. My object in putting the laical Government Board behind the County Councils is only this—that if the power of compulsion exists experience shows that it is hardly ever used. The knowledge that you can compel a Local Body to do a thing, naturally results in their doing it without recourse being had to force. The right hon. Baronet seems 970 to think that I have had a set notion of transferring an unpleasant duty to my successor. He was inclined to think that perhaps the words of the sub-section, "the Local Government Board who shall forthwith exercise those powers," are too drastic, and I shall be willing to alter them so as to read "may forthwith exercise those, powers," leaving the Local Government Board a discretion. I do not wish the County Councils to do the work under compulsion. I believe that when they know it is their duty they will discharge it. It may be an unpleasant duty; but if yon are to have effective local government in this country, if must be done, and we think the County Councils are the best authority for doing it. Further, I am quite willing to extend the period of 12 months which is fixed in the sub-section, if the Committee think that time to be too short. I only want to point out their duty to the County Councils, and to leave with them the knowledge that if they do not perform it someone else will.

§ MR. W. LONG
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that some of the most valuable legislation has been unpopular; but while I share his heroic sentiments I should have thought more of the right, hon. Gentleman's courage if he had taken this difficult and unpopular task on his own shoulders. As for the difference between this measure and the Bill of 1888, I would point out that as the latter emerged from the House of Commons there was not only no compulsion, but no direct incentive to the County Councils to carry out these changes. There was no necessity that these small subordinate areas of local government should be brought within the area of the county; but those conditions are changed in this Bill. This measure carries local government a great deal further, and establishes what we proposed to establish when we brought in the Bill of 1888—namely, District Councils. The County Councils will now have every inducement—which they had not in 1888—to address themselves to these difficult questions, and, if possible, to solve them. But whilst I cordially recognise the attempt which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite has made to meet my right hon. Friend and to bring about a compromise, I would ask is it worth while to put into 971 the Bill a provision which we may feel perfectly certain will never be carried out. Let me say what the result will be. You are laying on the County Councils certain duties with regard to small areas. If the County Councils fail to perform their duties with respect to these small areas the reason will be either that the difficulties are insuperable or that the unpopularity of bringing about the changes is too great. I would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent county Divisions to imagine what their position would be supposing the Government of the day had changed hands, and it was then held by their opponents. What would they say if the Local Government Board took advantage of their powers and proposed to effect changes in local areas. Tremendous unpopularity would be the result; the representatives of the districts would address themselves to their Representatives in Parliament, and urge them to attack the President of the Local Government Board of the day. Would the Opposition be able to resist taking advantage of such an opportunity as that? They would come down to the House of Commons and powerfully denounce the majority who had endeavoured, in opposition to the wishes expressed by the Representatives of the people in the counties, to carry out an unpopular and, as would be contended, unnecessary provision. I believe you could trust the County Councils to do this work if it is necessary, and can be done. I agree that these changes must undoubtedly be made some day, but some of them cannot be effected for a considerable time. No doubt, the extension of the time from one to two years is a valuable concession.

§ MB. H. H. FOWLER
I did not say two years.

§ MR. W. LONG
The value of the concession will depend on the length of time the right hon. Gentleman allows. The making of the provision permissive instead of obligatory is also a valuable concession, and will meet a great deal of objection. If that is the best we can get we must be satisfied. We had better be content with half a loaf than no bread. I confess I do not see the advantage of putting into an Act of Parliament powers which, I venture to say, no public Department will ever dare to use. If the County Councils make 972 the attempt and fail, no Local Government Board will incur the unpopularity of using the powers, but the Government will have to proceed by way of a Special Commission to report to Parliament, leaving Parliament to face the unpopularity itself.

§ MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)
said, he had in his own county himself attended before the Boundary Commissioners, and he was, therefore, able to speak as to the strength of the sentiment with regard to the alteration of boundaries. The county refused to alter the areas and sacrifice commonsense to mere symmetry in order to carry out the wishes of two or more adjoining counties. If, under this sub-section, County Councils refused to alter areas it would not be the County Council of one county that would so act. It would be the County Councils of two or more adjoining counties acting on reports of committees. It was not likely that the Local Government Board would then proceed to act dictatorially and at variance with the public opinion of the localities interested. When he left the House shortly before Christmas be believed the measure to be one of decentralisation—he thought they were going to relieve a congested Government Department. He returned to the House in a renovated condition—and he wished he could say the same for hon. Gentlemen who were dealing with the Bill—and found the Bill one of centralisation. In regard to this particular sub-section he ventured to support the Amendment.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the Amendment be had suggested had taken the sting out of the sub-section. He could not, however, conceive what use the sub-section could be if altered in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It was perfectly clear that the Local Government Board would never interfere in the circumstances. He would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, in older to enable the right hon. Gentleman to move his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Motion of Sir M. HICKS-BEACH, the following Amendments to the proposed New Clause were agreed to:— In line 76, to leave out the words "twelve months," and insert the words "two years. 973 In line 81, to leave out the words "twelve months," and insert the words "two years.

§ On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment to the proposed New Clause was agreed to:— In line 83, to leave out the words "shall forthwith," and insert the word "may.

§ MR. HOWARD
said, he desired to move to add, in line 140, Provided that nothing in this Act shall alter or affect the division already made of any parish into separate urban districts under any special Act. He had already stated that a difficulty had arisen in his own division where they had a large parish which had been divided by special Act of Parliament into two urban districts. What they were afraid of was that Sub-section 2 would have the effect of bringing the divided areas together again.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 140, at end, to add,—"Provided that nothing in this Act shall alter or affect the division already made of any parish into separate urban districts under any special Act."—(Mr. Howard.)

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

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that under his proposal the two divisions referred to would be dealt with as separate parishes.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, that perhaps this was the right moment for a Member to say a few words on the clause as a whole. The clause contained 19 Subsections and covered two and a half pages of closely-printed foolscap. It was really a Bill of 19 clauses, and they saw it for the first time when they entered the House to-day. As to its merits he believed, subject to correction, it incorporated, he might almost say appropriated, many Amendments which had been notified from that (the Opposition) side of the House, especially some in the name of the hon. Member for West Derby. In so far as it did that no doubt it was good, and they could only hope that it would turn out all right. They really had had no proper time or opportunity to consider it in detail; but 974 if, later on, it wore found that there were faults and omissions in it, they would have to be rectified on Report.

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ Amendment proposed,

§ After Clause 29, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Removal of disqualification of married women.)

§ "A woman shall not be disqualified by marriage for being on any Local Government Register of electors, or for being an elector of any Local Authority, provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same property."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ MR. STOREY
said, he rose to a point of Order. As he understood the clause in its latest shape—it had appeared in several shapes—it would apply not merely to Rural Sanitary Authorities but to Town Councils and other Bodies.

§ THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. MELLOR)
called upon the Clerk to read the clause.

§ The clause having been read,

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that the clause had only appeared in two shapes, yesterday and to-day. It was not surprising that in a Bill of this magnitude mistakes should occur from time to time. A mistake had occurred in this case. A clause had been proposed; it had been redrawn to meet objections on the score of Order, and the wrong form had been sent to the printer. The present form was that in which the clause had been drawn under his own direction, and he desired to ask the Chairman whether, as it now stood upon the White Paper, it was in Order?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
As the clause stands upon the White Paper I think it is in Order.

§ MR. STOREY
said, that as the clause stood it would include Town Councils. The Bill professed to deal with local government in counties, and the Committee had scrupulously refrained from dealing with the qualification and lists in boroughs, upon the ground that the Bill did not relate to boroughs, just as 975 hey had also refrained from interfering with the qualifications and lists in counties, because they were not dealing in the Bill with County Councils. They had understood—certainly he had understood—that in that Bill they were limited to the question of local government other than County Councils and Municipalities. He wished to ask whether, there having already been cases in which Amendments had been ruled out of Order because they related to towns as such, the clause in its present shape was in Order, or whether the words, "for the purposes of this Act," must not be inserted in it to make it in Order?

ME. W. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)
submitted that the hon. Member's statement was not quite correct, because the Bill dealt with County Councils, and with the Councils of county boroughs.

§ MR. STOREY,
interposing, said, he had not stated that the House had not done something for County Councils and county boroughs, but that it had been ruled that the Committee could not deal with the Registers and electors of boroughs and counties because they were outside the limits of the Bill.

§ MR. W. M'LAREN
further desired to submit that the Committee was dealing with the Local Government Register in all boroughs, because it was dealing with the Register for the election of Boards of Guardians in boroughs, and that there was only one Register known by the name of the Local Government Register—namely, the burgess list in boroughs and the County Council list in counties, this Register being brought within the scope of the Bill for the purposes of elections of Boards of Guardians in boroughs and counties. He contended, therefore, that in dealing with the Local Government Register it was inevitable that the elections of the County Councils and Town Councils must be dealt, with.

§ MR. W. LONG
On the point of Order. I would ask whether it is not the case that, throughout the whole of this Bill, when the Local Government Register has been under consideration, it has been the special Local Government Register created by this Bill? [Mr. W. M'LAREN: No.] Well, I am putting a point of Order. I wish to ask whether, throughout the whole of this Bill, it has not been held that the County Council 976 Register is by no means affected by the exceptions and additions made to it by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of these Debates?

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)
Might I read to the Committee, on the point of Order, the Instruction moved by the hon. Member opposite and carried? It was— That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provisions to enfranchise for the purposes of this Act all those women, whether married or single, who would be entitled to be on the Local Government Register or on the Parliamentary Register if they were men.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That satisfies me on a point on which I was in doubt. I am now clear that this clause would not be in Order unless it included the words "for the purposes of this Act."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
then moved the clause in the following form:— For the purposes of this Act a woman shall not be disqualified by marriage for being on any Local Government Register of electors, or for being an elector of any Local Authority, provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same property.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ MR. STOREY
said, he was thankful that the Rules of the House had prevented the passing of the clause in such a form that it would suddenly, without any desire of their own, have placed on the Register multitudes of persons who had had no opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. He was himself in favour of women's suffrage, but before the Municipalities had women electors generally placed on the Registers he thought that the Municipal Authorities should be consulted. If this were a clause to give the franchise in counties to all women and all men, or to all married women and all married men, he should be for it, but it, was not a clause enfranchising all married women, but a clause enfranchising propertied women. It amounted to the creation of a property qualification, and of a new scheme for the manufacture of faggot votes. He must express his surprise that a Government which had declared that it was going to put an end to plural voting was now 977 going to give a plural vote to certain households. Still more must he express his surprise that a Government and a Party which at Newcastle and elsewhere had claimed that the vole ought to belong to the men and the women and not to the property, and had denounced those bigoted Tories opposite for proclaiming that property ought to be represented, should have made such a proposal. The clause permitted only the enfranchisement of a certain class of married women. Lot them make no distinction. Let them take in all. The clause aimed at the enfranchisement of only well-to-do married women. Under the Bill the squire and his wife would each have a vote, but the village schoolmaster and his wife would have only one vote between them, and the same invidious distinction would be drawn in other cases. The village manufacturer and his wife could have votes, but not so the worker in the factory and his wife! In the present condition of the lodger franchise, how could they who objected to it vote for a proposal of this kind? Under the lodger franchise the rich man could get a vote, but the poor man could not. On that (the Government) side of the House they had over and over again described such legislation as class legislation; and yet this proposal had come from a Liberal Government. He was prepared to vote to give the franchise to every married man and woman for local government purposes; but he was not prepared to single out the rich classes and say that the wives of those people who were rich should have votes while others should not. When the time came he would divide upon the clause. He would, then, move the omission of the words— Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same property, so that the wife of the working man might be enfranchised equally with the wife of the man in a better position in life. If the clause were adopted in its present form it would lead to enormous political activity and increase the cost of registration. They would have the people in towns—some of them—having two votes, while the working man would not have more than one, because be would not have offices the same as the others. Having established the principle 978 in the districts, how could they resist it in the towns? The result would be that all married men and married women would have votes, and then they would have claims from the single men and women, until, in the end, every man and woman would have votes. He did not object to that. He objected to proceeding to it in the unfair fashion now proposed. He wished the Government to understand that he would move an Amendment at a later stage, in order that, if this were to be done, it should be done as fairly as possible.

§ MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)
said, the action of the hon. Member was directed against women, and women only. If father and son were qualified, each would have a vote; and if father and daughter had separate qualifications, each would have votes; but because a man married, the woman lost the vote which she had before her marriage. It was against this principle of sex, and distinction of that character, that he (Mr. Courtney) contended.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)
said, he certainly intended to support his hon. Friend behind him (Air. Storey). He was opposed to any woman of any sort or kind inning a vote. He was one of the advocates of the domestic angel doctrine in regard to women. It would be destructive of all the charms of domesticity if women were given votes; but here they were asking that votes should be given to rich women and not to poor women. [Cries of "No!" and "Yes!"] His right hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney) said "No." His right hon. Friend was most insidious; he was, in fact, as insidious as a, woman. They might do this, but he (Mr. Labouchere) objected. He was in favour of all men having votes, but not of women; but, even so, he thought that they should make it clear how monstrous was the proposal which drew a distinction between rich and poor women on the basis of a property qualification—

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
There is no property qualification. The clause is not dependent on that; it is a purely occupation vote.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, very well; but in cases where there were two houses a man could easily get a vote for his wife by putting one of them in her name. They, therefore, opened the 979 possibility of creating faggot votes and doing injustice to the poor man. He had to decide between two things. He was going to oppose the clause. He would have the greatest pleasure in dividing if he thought he could get a majority to support him against the clause. He had not to deal with the question whether women should have votes, but whether rich women were to have them and poor women not to have them, and be was obliged to agree with his hon. Friend that in such a case women ought to be treated equally.

§ MR. W. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)
said, the insertion of the words "for the purposes of this Act" constituted an unfortunate deviation from the understanding arrived at when this subject was previously discussed.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order! I think I ruled on that question before.

§ * MR. W. M'LAREN
said, he was not going to discuss that question. The President of the Local Government Board undertook that he would have, as far as possible, the right of married women to vote at all local government elections made secure, even if it were necessary to re-commit the Bill for that purpose. He (Mr. M'Laren) would support the clause as far as it went, but would expect the complete pledge of the Government to be carried out, and would reserve to himself such power as he might have to secure the extension of the clause.

§ SIR C. DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean),
said, be thought his hon. Friends were confusing the Parliamentary franchise with the burgess franchise. They had to draw a broad distinction between the two.

§ GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)
said, he agreed with the Member for Northampton, and if men and women had votes it might not be conducive to domestic harmony. He had to propose—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ Question put, and agreed to.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, as the clause was intended to confer on women the right of being elected as well as being electors, he would move— In line 3, to insert the words "or for being elected as a member of any Local Authority.

980

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

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, that as regarded Local Authorities within this Act, it had already been provided that married women might be elected. As regarded those outside the Act, the Chairman had ruled that the Committee had no business to make any amendment at all. Therefore, the words proposed to be introduced by his right hon. Friend were unnecessary.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. STOREY
moved to leave out— Provided that a husband and wife shall not both be qualified in respect of the same property. He said, the effect of the clause as it stood was that it would be possible and comparatively easy for well-to-do men, in county districts and in towns, for Guardian purposes, to get themselves and their wives put upon the Register, and thus to get two votes; but if the man were a poor man—say a workman living in a village, an agricultural labourer living in a cottage, or a schoolmaster living in a, cottage—these, not having outside property, would not be able to have two votes, because of the limitation introduced by the Government, which he now proposed to remove. He maintained that, if married women were to have the franchise, all married women ought to have it, rich and poor alike.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 3, after the word "authority," to leave out to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Storey.)

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

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, that as the clause stood no two persons could be qualified in respect of the same property; but the effect of the Amendment would be that, whereas no two other persons could be qualified in respect of the same property, a husband and wife might be.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Aves 127; Noes 31.—(Division List, No. 413.)

§ GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)
said, the hon. Member for 981 Northampton had spoken of the necessity for maintaining domestic harmony. He was of the same opinion, and therefore wished to move an Amendment to the effect that, where a married woman was entitled to a vote, the husband should record the vote in her behalf.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Older, order! The Amendment raised is so novel and unconstitutional in its character that, in accordance with the Rule, I must decline to put it.

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

§ New Clause (Supplemental as to elections, polls, and tenure of office).

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, after Clause 31, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Supplemental as to elections, polls, and tenure of office.)

§ "(1) The election of a Parish Councillor shall be at a parish meeting, or at a poll consequent thereon.

§ (2) Hides framed under this Act by the Local Government Board in relation to elections shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, and shall provide, amongst other things—

(i.) for every candidate being nominated in writing by two parochial electors as proposer and seconder;
(ii.) for preventing an elector at an election for a Union or for a district not a borough from subscribing a nomination paper or voting in more than one parish or other area in the Union or district;
(iii.) for fixing the day of the poll and the hours during which the poll is to be kept open, so, however, that the poll shall always be open between the hours of 6 and 8 in the evening;
(iv.) for the polls at elections held at the same date and in the same area being taken together, except where this is impracticable;
(v.) for the appointment of Returning Officers for the elections.

§ (3) At every election regulated by Rules framed under this Act the poll shall be taken by ballot, and 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' and 'The Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884,' and Part IV. of 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' as amended by the last-mentioned Act (including the penal provisions of those Acts), shall, subject to adaptations made by such Rules, apply in like manner as in the case of a municipal election; but Section 6 of 'The Ballot Act, 1872,' shall apply in the case of such elections, and the Returning Officer may, in addition to using the schools and public rooms therein referred to free of charge for taking the poll, use the same, free of charge, for hearing objections to nomination papers and for counting votes.

982

§ (4) This section shall, subject to any adaptations made by the said Rules, apply in the case of every poll consequent on a parish meeting, as if it were a poll for the election of Parish Councillors.

§ (5) The provisions of 'The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,' and the enactments amending the same, with respect to the expenses of elections of Councillors of a borough, and to the acceptance of office, resignation, re-eligibility of holders of office, and the filling of casual vacancies, shall, subject to the adaptations made by the said Rules, apply in the case of Guardians and of District Councillors of a county district not a borough, and of members of the Local Board of Woolwich, and of a Vestry under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, and any Act amending the same. Provided that—

(a) The provisions as to resignation shall not apply to Guardians, and District Councillors of a rural district shall be in the same position with respect to resignation as members of a Board of Guardians; and
(b) nothing in I he enactments applied by this section shall authorise or require a Returning Officer to hold an election to fill a casual vacancy which occurs within six months before the ordinary annual day of retirement from the office in which the vacancy occurs, and the vacancy shall be filled at the next ordinary election; and
(c) The Rules may provide for the incidence of the charge for the expenses of the elections of Guardians being the same as heretofore.

§ (6) If any difficulty arises as respects the election of any individual Councillor or Guardian, and there is no provision for holding another election, the County Council may order a new election lo be held, and give such directions as may be necessary for the purpose of holding the election.

§ (7) Any ballot boxes, fittings, and compartments provided by or belonging to any Public Authority for any election (whether Parliamentary. County Council, Municipal, School Board, or other) shall, on request, and if not required for immediate use by the said authority, be lent to the Returning Officer for an election under this Act, upon such conditions, and either free of charge or, except in the prescribed cases, for such reasonable charge as may be prescribed.

§ (8) The expenses of any election under this Act shall not exceed the scale fixed by the County Council, or if the County Council make default, by the Local Government Board."

§ Clause brought up, and rend the first and second time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be added to the Bill."

983

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, he proposed to move, in line 1, after "parish meeting," the insertion of the words— To be held on the 25th day of March in each year. The point he wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was this: There was nowhere, so far as he could remember, any definite date for these parish meetings upon which all other proceedings were to follow, and he did not know that the Local Government Board were going to fix the parish meetings under their Rules, though they wore going to fix the poll, which was a very different thing. He thought they should have some definite annual date when the parish would know there was to be a parish meeting. The first meeting would be of great importance because, supposing there was no election, they would at that meeting elect the Council for the whole year, and after that the ordinary elector would have nothing more to do with parish business for the rest of the year; at least, that was his view, and it would be of great practical advantage to have something corresponding to the present Lady Day Vestries. If they had a definite date, that all the electors might know when the parish meeting was to be held, it would lead to larger numbers attending the meeting. If the Government relied on the notice to be given he did not think they realised the practice of those who lived in the country. Country people did not go in much for reading, and might never go near the place where the notices were fixed; but a fixed date remained in their minds, and they were likely to attend when the date came round. As he was sure the Government were as anxious as he was that as many of these electors as possible should attend these animal meetings in the Spring, he was anxious, as a practical man, to do something to afford them every facility to attend. He did not wish to insist upon having these words inserted here, but somewhere on the face of the Bill, whether hero, in the First Schedule, or some other place, there ought to be some definite date fixed for the holding of the parish meeting.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 1, after the word "meeting," to insert the words "to be held on the 25th day of March in each year."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

984

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

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he did not think it would be desirable to insert the date mentioned by the hon. Member in either the Bill or the Schedule. The Government thought it best to leave this question, with others, in the hands of the parish meetings. However, the amended Schedule would be issued to-morrow, and the hon. Member would then see how the point he had in view was affected by it. He would suggest, therefore, that discussion on the matter should be deferred until Monday.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
said, he would point out that Clause 3 seemed to indicate by Sub-section (4) the particular day for the first meeting of the Parish Council, and that being so, the parish meeting must be within a few days of that date. He thought his hon. Friend had overlooked that clause.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, he would reserve the question until he saw the Schedule.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
said, he was most anxious, if he possibly could, to get a small Amendment accepted on this last part of the Bill with reference to the Returning Officer, who would be appointed for the purposes of these elections. He proposed, as a new subsection, after Sub-section 1, to insert— In rural districts the Returning Officer shall be appointed by the Parish Council, and where there is no Parish Council, by the parish meeting. In the withdrawn clause (35) the right hon. Gentleman had arranged that the Parish Council should appoint the Returning Officer, but under the reformed clause the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reserve the appointment of the Returning Officer to the Local Government Board. His (Commander Bethell's) object was to secure that the appointment of the Returning Officer should be made by the Parish Council, and his reason was, that for two of the series of elections the Returning Officer would naturally be appointed by the Council, and in the third election, the triennial election, the authorities with whom they were dealing were precisely the same; in either case it was the parish, whether it was for the election of Parish Council or District 985 Council, and the Parish Authority might well be left to appoint the Returning Officer. That would cause no inconvenience to anyone; the counting of the votes for the District Council would take place in the parish in the same way as counting the votes for the Parish Council, and the advantage would be that the Parish Council would appoint one man, probably the schoolmaster, who would do the work so much more cheaply. That was the immediate advantage, but there was a prospective advantage that animated him. He looked forward, at no great distant date, to a time when all electors throughout the country would be able to vote in their own villages without having to tramp many miles, as was frequently the case at present. He did not want to complicate but to simplify and cheapen the elections by Parish Councils. He was inclined to think there could be no objection to the Amendment he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought there would be advantages both in the way of economy and simplification of elections, as well as the prospective advantages to which he had referred; therefore, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see Ins way to accept the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, After line 2, as a new sub-section, to insert,—"In rural districts the Returning Officer shall be appointed by the Parish Council, or, where there is no Parish Council, by the parish meeting."—(Commander Bethell.)

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

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, the Committee had enforced on the Local Government Board the framing of these Rules. The Local Government Board did not ask for it, and did not want it; and now he thought it was too late to complain and to say that the Local Government Board, having made the Rules, were not to have them in their own control. The appointment of Returning Officers was practically fixed by the existing law. They had all been anxious to secure economy in the Bill, but at the request of many hon. Members, notably the hon. Baronet opposite, he had felt it his duty to insert clauses for compensation if any existing officer was interfered with, and, therefore, under these circumstances, if the Amend- 986 ment were carried there must be heavy compensation paid by someone. The Committee having given the Local Government Board this power, they could not discharge it properly without Rules, one of which provided for the appointment of Returning Officers. The clerk to the Guardians was now, under their regulations, the Returning Officer for all rural districts and all Boards of Guardians, and if they interfered with them complaints would be made, because, as these gentlemen said, a large portion of their income was derived from this source. Whether that was right or wrong he was not disposed to change this system and compensate these gentlemen, therefore he could not accept the Amendment.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
asked if the Returning Officers under this Act, officers of the District Council, would have to be compensated?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Certainly.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
said, he knew it was part of their duty.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
It is part of their income, and they would complain.

§ MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)
said, there was no doubt that one of the most serious causes of complaint in all elections was the fees paid to Returning Officers. The fees paid to these gentlemen were paid under an Act of Parliament, and they were extremely heavy, so heavy that he was quite certain that in a large proportion of the parishes in rural counties they would not be able to have any election at all if the fees stood at anything like the rate fixed by Act of Parliament.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Allow me to interrupt the hon. Member. There is a clause that proposes the fees shall be fixed by the County Council, and charges will not be allowed outside the scales fixed by the County Council.

§ MR. FULLER
said, he was alive to that, and on that account he was anxious they should know beforehand what the maximum scale was to be, because it would be absolutely impossible for the County Council to fix a scale within the reach of poor parishes to have any elections at all. They knew that a large number of parishes formed polling stations throughout the county divisions, and in Wiltshire the County Council elections cost the ratepayers an average of £25 for each polling station, and that 987 was not so largo an average as in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, and some other comities. The Returning Officers here would have to do precisely the same functions—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! I must point out that we cannot have a discussion as to that; the Amendment only goes to the appointment of the Returning Officer.

§ MR. FULLER
said, he would confine his remarks to that particular point. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to let the appointment of Returning Officers be by the parish meeting or the Parish Council themselves. He was quite confident there were many men who would be prepared to carry out the Rules laid down by the Local Government Board, and to perform the duties of the Returning Officer without any payment at all. In the County of Wiltshire more than half the parishes were under £2,000 rateable value and could not raise more than £6 or £8 under a 1d. rate, and the result would be that an election of Guardians or District Councils would require a 3d. rate to pay for the expense, and that, he said was a very serious matter. What they wanted to know was, what would be the maximum fee as they might take it that would be the general sum charged?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
I must point out that the hon. Member is not dealing with the Amendment.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, that under the present regulations of the Local Government Board the clerks to the Guardians were the Returning Officers, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considered that under this Act, if any change was made in that respect, they would have a claim for compensation against the Local Authorities? Claims for compensation were rather serious things, and he must say he thought it was carrying it to a great extent if the fact that this officer was entitled, under the Local Government Board Regulations, to conduct certain elections, he should have a claim to compensation on the Local Authority if any change were made as to the officer who conducted the elections. He thought that was rather a serious extension of the principle of compensation. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the scale of fees would be fixed not by the 988 Local Government Board, but by a Local Authority, and he would ask him, suppose that scale was lower than the present scale, did the right hon. Gentleman consider that the clerk to the Guardians or to the District Council, who would lose a large portion of his income, would then have a claim for compensation against the Local Authority? If so, it would be impossible for the County Council to lay down any scale that would be lower than those contained in the present Regulations, and, therefore, this leaving the fixing of the scale in the hands of Local Authorities would be illusory. He wished to ask one other question. Did he understand that where elections would be conducted together—Parish and District Council elections—the clerk to the District Council was to be the Returning Officer? If that were so they would be extending the claim of the clerks to the District Council for compensation under this Act.

§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, what he had to say was this: The Local Government Board did not want this duty imposed upon them, but the House of Commons had imposed upon the Local Government Board the undertaking of these duties. Hon. Members asked what were the duties they we going to undertake. How could he answer that? Either they must trust the Local Government Board or they must not. He knew which would be the most economical course so far as the ratepayers were concerned. So far as related to compensation this was the law as laid down in the Local Government Act of 1888:— Every existing officer who by virtue of this Act, or anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of this Act, suffers any direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary shall be entitled to have compensation paid to him for such pecuniary loss by such authority and out of such fund as the Local Government Board may direct, regard being had to the conditions on which his appointment was made, to the nature of his office or employment, to the duration of his service, to any additional emoluments which he acquires by virtue of this Act, or of anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of this Act, and to the emoluments which he might have acquired if he had not refused to accept any office offered by any Council or other body acting-under this Act, and to all the other circumstances of the case, and the compensation shall not exceed the amount which under the Acts and rules relating to Her Majesty's Civil Service is paid to a person on abolition of office. 989 He (Mr. Fowler) had adopted that clause, and he read it out to the Committee before it was put in the Bill. He repeated that he could not say what the Rules of the Local Government Board would be, but it would be their bounden duty so far as possible to protect the Local Authorities in the matter of claims to compensation in these respects. So far as the Parish Councils were concerned, when the Rules were made they would be laid on the Table of the House, and Parliament would have an opportunity of passing an opinion upon them. The Amendment of the hon. Member opposite would not touch this question of cost at all. He did not want to undertake this duty, but as the House had decided it should be placed on the Local Government Board, that body would endeavour to secure that the work should be well dune and cheaply done.

§ COMMANDED BETHELL
contended that under the proposal of the Government, Returning Officers would be sent down by the Local Government Board at great cost to do the work which could have been done by gentlemen in the locality for a very trifling sum, and the result would mean almost ruin in the case of some of these small authorities. He believed the country would rise up in alarm when they read the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He would not trouble the Committee to divide, but he would prefer his Amendment to be negatived rather than withdraw it.

§ MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)
said, surely these Returning Officers could not claim the right to be the Returning Officers to the new Parish Councils.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Certainly not.

§ MR. EVERETT
hoped that the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would be adopted—namely, that in parishes where trustworthy individuals undertook to discharge these duties gratuitously no hindrance would be put in the way of such an arrangement.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, he wished to move the omission of paragraph 2 of the second sub-section with the view of calling the right hon. Gen- 990 tleman's attention to what appeared to him a rather important matter of drafting. There was nothing in the Bill, so far as it had been yet passed, prohibiting persons from nominating or voting in more than one parish for the election of Guardians of the Union. In proposing that persons should be prohibited from doing so of course the right hon. Gentleman was following the precedent of the Municipal Corporations Act, and the County Council Act of 1888. But he did alter the law as it now stood with respect to the election of Guardians in that regard; therefore, if he proposed to do so, the right hon. Gentleman ought to enact that provision in a clause of the Bill rather than by a paragraph of this kind simply authorising the Local Government Board to make regulations to prevent it.

§ Amendment proposed, to leave out paragraph 2 of Sub-section (2).—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

§ Question proposed, "That paragraph 2 stand part of the New Clause."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for calling attention to this point. He would suggest that the provision should be inserted here now, and then if the legal authorities thought it better to put it in a subsequent clause he would have it done.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, on this understanding be would withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— After the word "fixing," in line 12, to insert the words "or enabling the County Council to fix.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
moved, after "election," in line 18, to insert the words "of Guardians or District Councillors." The effect of the Amendment would be to limit the sub-section to the election of Guardians and District Councillors only. Was it necessary to apply to the elections of Parish Councillors all the various Statutes mentioned in Section 3? He could not believe that under the wording of this sub-section it would be possible for the Local Government Board to over-rule and exclude the whole of these Statutes which were applied to elections. These Statutes contained elaborate provisions for Election Peti- 991 tions, sending down barristers and other machinery involving the expenditure of a good deal of money and entirely inapplicable to such elections as those of Parish Councils, especially in the case of very small parishes. It was true these provisions applied to School Boards, but they represented larger areas and were more important. He begged to move the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 18, after the word "election," to insert the words "or Guardians or District Councillors."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed New Clause."

§ SIR J. RIGBY
observed that with reference to School Board elections the matter was originally left to the Education Department, but in the year 1884, after 14 years' experience, the plan the Government were now proposing for Parish Councils was applied to School Boards. It was quite true the School Boards included most important bodies, but the Parish Councils would include most important bodies. There were small Parish Councils, and there would would be very largo and very important parishes which would have their Parish Councils, many of them quite comparable to cases in respect to which the Municipal Elections Act of 1884 and the Corporation Act were originally intended to apply. He did not think the hon. Gentleman quite appreciated the extent of the jurisdiction that would be given under this section to the Local Government Board by way of adaptation. He was inclined to be of opinion that if in the case of small parishes they were to give the "go-by" to many of the provisions to which the hon. Member had referred, They would be acting altogether within their powers. The Rules when made would have the force of an Act of Parliament. Though, of course, the Local Government Board would be under very serious responsibility in the exercise of jurisdiction, and though, of course, they would be wholly responsible to this House in respect of what they did under this clause, they were not tied down in any way if they considered that the Acts referred to could be altered or modified. If it were considered advisable even to leave important parts out of them by 992 reason of their want of adaptability to the case of the smaller Councils he could see no reason why it should not be done. He looked upon this as one of the most elastic sections as it stood, and he did not think it necessary to introduce the words which the hon. Gentleman now proposed. But while now accepting the Amendment, he would say that the matter should be most carefully considered, and if it was found necessary at all to move in the direction of the Amendment, or in any other way to introduce greater elasticity into the clause, it should be done. The matter should receive the best consideration of the Government, and, if necessary, they would bring up some Amendment to deal with the point on the Report stage.

§ MR. DODD
thought that difficulty must arise in the working of these provisions with regard to Parish Councils if they were taken from the Act of 1884. By that Act a Petition would require to be presented in every case where the election of a Parish Councillor was disputed. The provisions were exceedingly elaborate, requiring a Commissioner to be sent down who must be a barrister of 15 years' standing, whilst the Director of Public Prosecutions had to cause some other barrister to attend the inquiry. All this elaborate procedure seemed intensely ridiculous when dealing with the question whether a man was elected to a Parish Council or not. It was difficult to see how the words "adaptation" could be sufficiently elastic to destroy the whole procedure enacted by Act of Parliament, and he would ask the Solicitor General to consider very carefully before the Report stage what could be done in this matter.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
suggested that perhaps the word "alteration" might be better than "adaptation." There was another point he desired to mention. Of course, fixed hours were laid down for taking the poll by the Ballot Act. That was precisely what they did not want, but what they did want in such cases were shortened hours. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider this question.

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, the whole question should be very carefully considered, and the Government would be very happy to receive suggestions from either side of the House with a view to deciding how best the object aimed at could 993 be carried out. He would bear in mind the suggestion as to adding "alteration" in place of "adaptation." The point just mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Dodd) would receive every consideration. With reference to the hours of polling, when framing their Rules it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to take notice of the provisions of this Act in regulating the hours of polling and adapt their Rules accordingly, He would promise that all the points which had been raised should receive careful consideration.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In line 49, to leave out the word "annual.

MR. FULLEE
moved— In Sub-section (c), line 53, leave out the words "being the same as heretofore," and insert the words "and District Councillors, being general expenses and not special expenses, as mentioned in Section 230 of the Public Health Act, 1875. As he understood the matter, the expenses of elections of Guardians and District Councillors would be borne by the parishes where these contested elections took place. This seemed to him entirely contrary to what had been usual in other cases. They found in the County Council contested elections that the expenses were paid for out of the county rates; in the municipal borough contested elections out of the borough funds, and, therefore, be asked that in these cases of the election of District Councillors the expenses should be paid out of the district, and not the parish, rate.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 53, to leave out the words "being the same as heretofore," and insert the winds "and District Councillors, being general expenses and not special expenses, as mentioned in Section 230 of the Public Health Act, 1875."—(Mr. Fuller.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed New Clause.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he could not accept the Amendment. There was no burden put on any parish by this clause to which it was not liable at the 994 present time. It would be a very serious question indeed to alter the law in respect of all the urban districts. The law was this: The general expenses of the election of Guardians, where there was no contest, were borne by the common fund; but where there was any contest in any specific parish, that parish had always borne the cost of the contested election, and the Government were not prepared to make any alteration.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
said, the Amendment of the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) was out of Order.

§ MR. FULLER
was proceeding to move an Amendment in line 69, when—

§ SIR R. TEMPLE
said, he had an Amendment before this.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Docs the hon. Member give way?

§ MR. FULLER
was afraid that he could not give way to the hon. Member.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
On a point of Order, Sir—

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The point of Order is perfectly clear.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
But this is a new point of Order. I want to submit respectfully to you that the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston comes before the Amendment just moved by the hon. Member opposite.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has failed to see that as no notice was given by the Member for Kingston of this Amendment unless the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fuller) gives way he is in possession.

§ COMMANDER BETHELL
There has been no opportunity of giving notice.

§ MR. FULLER
moved to add, after Sub-section (8), line 69, the following proviso:— Provided always, that in the case of any contested election, the expenses chargeable to the poor rate of any rural village, shall not exceed £3 for parishes having less than 100 parochial electors entitled to vote at such elections, and an additional CI for every additional 100 electors. Under the arrangement in the Bill, the County Council would have to fix the scale of charges in District Council elections. The County Council had already fixed the scale of charges in School Board elections, and in his county 995 these charges were extremely heavy. He therefore desired to have a maximum scale inserted in the Bill beyond which the County Councils could not go in the case of District Council elections. In his county a contested School Board election cost from £20 to £25. Every polling station had a certain expenditure under the Rules and Regulations adopted by the County Council for elections in the electoral divisions of the county, and as the same duties and functions would have to be discharged at the polling stations at District Council elections, the same fees and expenses would be charged if a maximum scale such as he proposed were not put in the Bill.

§ Amendment proposed, In Sub-section (c), to add,—"Provided always, that in the case of contested elections, the expenses chargeable on the poor rate, shall not exceed £3 for parishes having less than 100 electors entitled to vote at such contested election, and an additional £1 for every additional 100 electors."—(Mr. Fuller.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added in the proposed New Clause."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, the Committee had already determined that this scale of fees should be fixed by the County Council. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the County Councils would fix, in the case of small local elections, the same scale of fees which they fixed in the large elections of County Councillors, but he could not believe that the County Councils would be so silly as to do anything of that sort. He had full confidence that they would fix a reasonable and moderate scale. He believed a moderate scale of fees for elections of Guardians had been already fixed under the Poor Law and the Regulations of the Local Government Board, and he did not know that any complaints had been made as to the cost of these elections. The Committee had determined to trust the County Councils with the fixing of the scale, and he was sure that the Councils would carry out the intention of the Legislature, which was that the scale should be reasonable and moderate.

§ MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)
said, that in Somersetshire the County Council paid presiding officers three guineas for County Council elections, while the same duties were performed in Bristol for 996 one guinea, and in London, he believed for 12s. 6d.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
asked whether, if the County Council considered the present scale under the Regulations of the Local Government Board too high and fixed a lower scale, there would be any claim on the part of district officers for compensation against the County Council?

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, if these officers wore dispossessed altogether and other persons appointed to perform their duties, there would unquestionably be a case for compensation. If a County Council paid three guineas to a presiding officer, possibly it involved travelling expenses. Every case must be looked at on its own merits. He did not believe the County Councils would act otherwise than in a common-sense manner, and he was prepared to leave the matter in their hands.

§ Question put, and negatived.

§ Question, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, after Clause 36, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Supplemental provisions as to Overseers.)

§ "If, in the case of a rural parish or of any urban parish in respect to which the power of appointing Overseers has been transferred under this Act, notice in the prescribed form of the appointment of Overseers is not received by the Guardians of the Poor Law Union comprising the parish within three weeks after the 15th day of April, or after the occurrence of a vacancy in the office of Overseer, as the case may be, the Guardians shall make the appointment or fill the vacancy, and any Overseer appointed by the Guardians shall supersede any Overseer previously appointed whose appointment has not been notified. Any such notice shall be admissible as evidence that the appointment has been duly made."

§ Clause brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved, in page 30, after Clause 50, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Saving for elementary schools.)

§ "Nothing in this Act shall affect the trusteeship, management, or control of any elementary school for education in the principles of any particular Church or denomination."

§ Clause brought up, and read the first and second time.

997

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause he added to the Bill."

§ MR. HAVES FISHER (Fulham)
proposed lo amend the new clause, in line 3, by adding at end "or of any educational charity." He presumed that the President of the Local Government Board in putting down this new clause— Nothing in this Act shall affect the trusteeship, management, or control of any elementary school for education in the principles of any particular Church or denomination, did intend that the new trustees to be appointed by the Parish Councils should not be substituted for the trustees of endowments given for the education of children in the principles of any particular Church or denomination. But he went a little further in his Amendment. He thought the educational charities should not at all be under the control of the Parish Councils. The Parish Council might be an excellent body to perform all the ordinary acts of local government, but he did not think it was a body well suited for educational purposes, which were quite distinct from ordinary parochial purposes. He did not think that the County Council of London—though he admired their work to a huge extent—would be a proper body to undertake the educational work of London, and it was with a view to keeping educational matters as distinct and as separate as possible from parochial government that he moved the Amendment.

§ Amendment proposed, In line 3, at end, to add the words "or of any educational charity."—(Mr. Hayes Fisher.)

§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added in the proposed New Clause."

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, the Government did not propose to interfere with endowments intended for the educational purposes of elementary schools. But they could not exclude all educational charaties from the operation of the Act. It would be a very large interference with the powers of the parochial that trustees, and the Government did not think that there was anything in the nature of such trusts which should withdraw them altogether from the provisions of the Bill with reference to parochial charities generally.

998

§ * MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)
said, the real point at issue was whether charities which were for elementary schools of particular denominations were or were not excluded from this clause? He had received letters from persons interested in this question who said that the President of the Local Government Board had fairly carried out his promise to exclude the schools, but that his clause did not include the management of endowments for the schools. He was not a lawyer, and could not decide the point; but if the Solicitor General asserted that where an elementary school had an endowment, which, of course, was a charity, there would be no interference with the control or management of that charity or endowment, he would be satisfied. He was obliged to his hon. Friend for having moved the Amendment, for it was essential that the point should be made clear.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
asked whether the Solicitor General would consent to the insertion of the words "or endowments" after "school"? The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the clause as it stood carried that intention with it, but it did not express it in words. He was disposed to agree with his hon. Friend as to the exemption of all educational charities, but he thought it would not be advisable to press the matter further now.

§ SIR J. RIGBY
said, that under the clause as if stood the endowment, if it were entirely for educational purposes of an elementary school of a particular denomination, was excluded; but in the case of an endowment part of which was intended for educational purposes, and part for some other purposes, the latter part would come under the operation of the Act.

§ MR. HAYES FISHER
said, he would not press the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved— In page 32, after Clause 57, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Provisions as to Scilly Islands.)

§ "This Act shall be deemed to be an Act touching local government within the meaning of Section 49 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' and a Provisional Order for 999 the Scilly Irelands may, on the application of the Council of the Isles of Scilly, be made accordingly."

§ Clause brought up, road the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
moved—

§ (Provision as to taking over highways.)

§ After Clause 64, to insert the following Clause:—"Where before the appointed day the highway expenses were charged on a particular parish or other area and not on a district, the District Council may determine that the highways in that parish or area shall be placed in proper repair before the expenses of repairing the same become a charge upon the district, and the expense incurred by them of placing those highways in proper repair shall be a separate charge on the parish or area, and any question which arises as to whether any such expenses are properly a separate charge on the parish or area shall be determined by the County Council."

§ Clause brought up, read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

§ MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)
said, he begged to move the new clause on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for East Wills.

§ Amendment proposed, In page 11, to leave out Clause 14, and insert the following Clause:—

§ (Certain powers may be delegated to Parish Councils by District Councils.)

§ "A District Council may delegate to the Parish Council all or any of the powers of a Local Authority in respect of sewerage and drainage under the Public Health Acts."

§ Question proposed, "That Clause 14 stand part of the Bill."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that the object of the proposed clause was provided for in Clause 14.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ MR. STRACHEY
said, he would move the next new clause in the name of the hon. Member for East Wilts, to provide that one-fourth of the parochial electors of a rural parish should be the quorum of the parish meeting. It must be obvious to the Committee that where business of importance has to be done it was essential that there should be a fixed quorum for meetings. He was not particular whether it was one-fourth or even a smaller number, but he did think that the President of the Local Government Board should accept a quorum of some kind.

1000

§ Amendment proposed, In page 12, after Clause 18, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (Quorum of parish meetings.)

§ "One-fourth of the parochial electors of a rural parish shall be the quorum of the parish meeting."

§ Question proposed, "That the Clause be there inserted."

§ MR. H. G. FOWLER
said, that question had already been discussed, and could be discussed again on the Schedule, if necessary—the Schedule which dealt with the question of procedure of parish meetings. He understood when the question was under discussion previously that there never had been such a provision in the case of Vestries. It seemed to him it would be inconvenient to introduce any Amendment of this kind here. The question should be dealt with on the Schedule.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
I congratulate the hon. Member opposite on his anticipation of the absolute want of interest which the parishioners will take in their own affairs.

§ MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme)
said, he begged to move the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere).

§ Amendment proposed, to add the following New Clause:—

§ (Chairman of the Parish Council to be a Justice.)

§ "The Chairman of the Parish Council, when a man, shall be a Justice of the Peace for the county in which the parish is situated whilst he holds such office of Chairman."—(Mr. W. Allen.)

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he hoped this clause would not be pressed.

§ MR. J. STUART
said, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman lit charge of the Bill would consider the advisability of applying this clause to the Chairman of Loudon Vestries.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. TEITTON (Lambeth, Norwood)
said, he begged to move the new clause next in order, which would prevent parish meetings being held in public-houses. 1001 He could not for an instant believe that the Government would refuse to accept this clause. He believed they would be doing an excellent work, when passing this large measure of local government reform, if they laid down the principle embodied in this Amendment.

§ Moved, to insert the following Clause:—

§ (No meetings to be held on premises on which intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied.)

§ "No parish meeting and no meeting of a Parish or District Council shall be held in any room on or connected with premises licensed for the sale by wholesale or retail of any intoxicating liquor, nor in any room on or connected with premises where any intoxicating liquor is sold or is supplied to members of a club, society, or association. Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent a meeting of a Parish or District Council being held in any room on or connected with premises on which any intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied, which is ordinarily let for the purpose of holding public meetings or of arbitrations, if such room has a separate entrance and no direct communication with the premises on which any intoxicating liquor is sold or supplied, and if there is no other suitable room available."—(Mr. Tritton.)

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, that the hon. Member was not in the House when he had spoken on this subject last night. He had said that be had very strong sympathy with the object of the new clause, and would like to see it enacted, bill be had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to do so at present, because there were a considerable number of parishes in the country where there was no room available except in the public-house.

§ MR. TRITTON
There is the second part of the clause.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
No, we could not impose any such restrictions upon small parishes. I hope that as time passes and parish rooms become general, that we shall la1 able to accept some such proposal as this, but at present I am afraid it is impossible. The hon. Member for Preston, the other day, gave an instance in which a large Board of Guardians found it convenient to fix their Board-room in licensed premises. I only refuse this proposal because I am obliged to do so.

§ MR. CAINE
said, that this clause stood on the Paper in his name, and he 1002 was obliged to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tritton) for moving it in his absence. If the right hon. Gentleman was anxious that this clause should go upon the Statute Book, he did not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not seize the opportunity that presented itself of passing it. The excuse that no room would be available would not hold water. It would be much better to hire a room in a farmhouse or a shop than to go to a public-house. There was scarcely a village in the country where there was not a school-room of some sort. He thought that after the very sympathetic reception the right hon. Gentleman had given to the Resolution they ought to take a Division upon it.

§ SIR M. HICKS-BEACH
said, he entirely differed from the view expressed by the President of the Local Government Board. He hoped Parliament would never inflict on Local Bodies such absurd restrictions as this. Having entrusted Parish Councils with important powers over persons and property in the parish, why should they not trust them to meet where they liked and to behave themselves when they did meet? This was the most ridiculous proposal ever made in the House of Commons.

§ Question put.

§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 70.—(Division List, No. 414.)

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The rest of the clauses are out of Order.

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
Is my clause on page 46 of the Amendment Paper out out of Order?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
Yes.

§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES
asked whether the clause in reference to the registration of women was out of Order?

§ SIR. C. W. DILKE
said, that this new clause was precisely within the terms of the Instruction passed by the House.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
No.

§ MR. ATHERLEY-JONES
For what reason, Sir, do you rule the clause out of Order? [Cries of "Order!"]

§ MR. H. HOBHOUSE
said, he desired to move a new clause on page 36 of the Paper of Amendments as follows:—

§ (District Councils may act as delegates of County Councils, 51 and 52 Vict. c. 41, s. 28.)

§ "Any District Council may, at the request of the County Council, undertake to exercise and perform any powers and duties relating to administrative business within their district that 1003 the County Council may, from time to time, and with or without any restrictions or conditions, think fit to delegate to such District Council;

§ "Provided that the County Council shall not under this section delegate any power of raising money by rate or loan."

§ This Amendment followed in substance the language of Section 58 of the Local Government Act. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would prefer other language to that of the Amendment, he (Mr. Hobhouse) would withdraw the clause and move it again on Report. His only object was to facilitate the performance of Public Business, and to enable the County Councils to act through the District Councils.

§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.

§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
said, he was very much in favour of the clause. The Department, however, raised some little difficulty, and he should like to have time to consider the proposal. Perhaps the hon. Member would raise it on Report.

§ Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.