COMMITTEE. [Progress, 8th January.]

HC Deb 09 January 1894 vol 20 cc1155-244

[THIRTY-FOURTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

A Clause (Hiring of land for allotments,)—(Mr. H. H. Fowler,)—brought up, and read the first and second time. [8th January.]

Amendment proposed, In line 41, before the word "may," to insert the words "where the allotment exceeds one acre."—(Mr. Chaplin.)

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

Debate resumed.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, he thought these words ought not to be inserted at that point. He saw no reason why the limit should be introduced; it simply handcuffed and manacled the agriculturist in a most unnecessary fashion.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,) Derby, Ilkeston

said, the Amendment could not be accepted, as there might be exceptional eases in which this limitation would be pre- judicial to the interests both of the holder of the acre, and to the other allotment holders.

Question put, and negatived.

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

On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, I beg to move the proviso in his name. The hon. Member for East Northamptonshire bad talked of the manacles and handcuffs in connection with the last Amendment, but he surely could not urge any objection of that nature to this proposal, which was intended to carry out what they believed to be the intentions of the Government. If allotments were let by a Public Body to individuals these individuals should be restricted to using the land for the purpose to which Parliament intended it to be applied. I hope the Government will accept these words.

Amendment proposed, In line 42, at end, to insert the words,— "Provided also that—

1. (a) An allotment shall not be divided, subdivided, or assigned without the consent of the Parish Council;
2. (b) The allotment shall be cultivated by the occupier, and shall not be used for any purpose other than agriculture, as defined in Section 20 of the Small Holdings Act of 1892."— (Mr. A.J. Balfour.)

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

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

The Local Government Board have to make regulations about all matters concerning allotments, and I think it would be safer and far better to leave it to them to make Rules with regard to this particular matter. These remarks apply to the question of sub-division. As to the second part of the Amendment, it would, in my opinion, be going too far to insert a Rule in an Act of Parliament that the hind should be cultivated by the occupier himself. The occupier might have a member of his family, for instance, whom he might wish should assist him in the cultivation, and he would, too, be prevented paying other labourers who assisted him in the management of his allotment. The matter may be regulated by an Order of the Local Govern- ment Board or by an Order of the Parish Council approved by the Local Government Board. But what is now proposed is too hard-and-fast a Rule to be inserted in an Act of Parliament, and it might give rise to great difficulties.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's chief objection to the Amendment is to the phraseology of the second sub-section, and possibly the words are drawn too strictly. There may be circumstances in which it may be justifiable for the occupier of a small allotment to call in extraneous aid, but words ought to be introduced which would carry out the intention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford—namely, that allotments should be cultivated by those to whom they are let. The lion, and learned Gentleman has said that, after all, it rests with the Parish Council to carry out that object, and that the Parish Council will carry it out in their own interest. I do not see what motive the Parish Council have for imposing any restriction in this case at all. I would point out that the Government, for reasons which seemed to them sufficient, have determined to make a new departure in regard to the hiring of land. I do not say whether that departure is justifiable or mi justifiable, but those in whose opinion it is justifiable must admit it can only be justifiable in order to carry out some great public object—namely, the cultivation by labourers themselves of their own allotments. The Government ought certainly to secure that that object is carried out if they take from unwilling owners land by compulsory purchase or hiring.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This Bill is not a Small Holdings Bill. The principle of the extension of allotments is embodied in it, and the limit or the quantity of arable land in an allotment is fixed at one acre. There is no such restriction as is now suggested in the Allotments Act of 1887. There is no regulation in that Act that allotments should be cultivated by the occupier, and the Government are, therefore, not prepared to accept the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, he objected to the statement of the Solicitor General that this was a, matter for regulation. On the contrary, it was a fundamental principle. Parliament had been invited to sanction the acquisition under compulsory powers of land for a specific public purpose; they asked that the use of that land should be confined to the specific public purpose indicated in the clause. According to the plan of the Government a person might become a tenant, under the Parish Councils, of a plot of land on the understanding that he wanted it for himself, but, so far as he understood, with the approval of the Government; no steps were to be taken to prevent him from sub-dividing or letting out the whole of that land to other persons. He undertook to say that that was distinctly contrary to every sound public purpose associated with small holdings or allotments. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no such restrictions were introduced into the Allotments Act of 1887. He must draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Sub-section 3 of Section 7 of that Act.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I did not say that.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he accepted the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman but he was distinctly understood to say that no such restriction was imposed in the Allotments Act. At any rate, the Solicitor General had clearly and distinctly laid it down that it would be unfair and intolerable for Parliament to impose any such restriction on the occupier of an allotment. Well, Subsection 3 of Section 7 of the Act of 1887 provided that "the allotment shall not be sub-let." As to the second part of the Amendment, the Solicitor General had stated that it would prevent any occupier from getting his son or any member of his family to share in the necessary agricultural work. He ventured to say that the words were not capable of such an interpretation. He felt certain that the Solicitor General would not occupy the time of a Court of Law for half a second on that contention. In any case, the difficulty could be got over by the insertion of the words "or on behalf of." The object of the clause was to provide that when an allotment was given to an agricultural labourer it should not be sub-let, or handed over to another person, but should be cultivated by himself. Surely it could not be said that if a person hired land for the purpose of cultivating it he should erect buildings upon it, otherwise than buildings for agricultural purposes. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman was running away from the proper interpretation of his own clause. The intention of Parliament was that the land should be used for the purpose indicated, and for that purpose alone, but the clause would fail to carry out that intention if the words of the Amendment were not inserted.

MR. ACLAND

said, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman as to subletting hardly applied in the present instance, as Sections 5 and 8 of the Bill, which included Section 7 of the Allotments Act of 1887, already applied to any allotment hired by a Parish Council. In regard to the second part of the Amendment, the Allotments Act of the late Government did not go into the question of cultivation by the occupier.

MR. J. LOWTHER

So much the worse for the Act.

MR. ACLAND

So much the worse for the Act, if the right hon. Gentleman likes; but the present Government do not propose to go any further than the late Conservative Government in that matter.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

asked, how it could be contended that under this Amendment a labourer would not be perfectly capable of employing someone else to cultivate the land for him? Would a labourer not then be doing the work himself within the meaning which the law applied to the doing of a thing oneself, and would he not be responsible for what was done in the act of cultivating it? He hoped the Solicitor General would, for the sake of his own reputation, re-consider the opinion which, doubtless, he had given somewhat hastily, and without having considered all the bearings of the matter.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

moved the omission from the clause of the words— Shall not break up, or permit to be broken up, any permanent pasture. He wished to point out at the outset that the Amendment could not be accepted without an undertaking on the part of the Government that they would re-insert the words which stood in the original clause guaranteeing to the owner the fullest possible compensation where permanent pasture was broken up. His contention had been from the first that by the original form of the clause absolute justice was done to the owner. The arbitrator was clearly directed to award the fullest compensation for pecuniary loss in respect to pasture land that was broken up. As the clause stood, it prohibited the breaking-up of pasture, even in the case where it had been let under voluntary agreement by the landlord to the Parish Council. What an absurd position the House would place itself in if they prohibited the breaking-up of pasture land, even in a case where the owner was perfectly willing to assent to a part or the whole of some grass field near the village being broken up for potato ground or for vegetable garden allotments! In the interest of freedom of contract, and in the interest of amicable and conciliatory arrangements between landowners and Parish Councils, the provision ought to be limited to pasture acquired under the compulsory powers of the Pill. The proviso wholly prevents the creation of any potato or wheat allotments or vegetable gardens in the neighbourhood of villages, where there was nothing but grass laud available for allotments, even where those lauds would be voluntarily given up by the landlord; and therefore, as be had said, the least that could be done was that the Government should limit the prohibition to the breaking-up of permanent pasture acquired under the compulsory powers of the Bill. He was well aware of the enormous value of permanent pasture. He did not want to destroy that value, and he thought that those who knew most of agriculture, in many parts of the country, would encourage the laying down of land in permanent pasture than otherwise. In some districts of the Midlands, where cheese was largely made, such as Melton Mowbray and parts of Cheshire, and in the dairying districts of Derbyshire and other counties, there were men who wanted pasture allotments, and were able to undertake small dairy holdings of four acres, and had capital to stock them. But everyone acquainted with the grass counties would agree with him that the vast majority of those who in the grass counties wanted allotments wanted and could only take arable allotments. What was wanted in the grass districts of the Midlands was power to enable a quarter of an acre, half an acre, or one acre of laud to be obtained by the labourers whereon they could raise wheat, barley, and vegetables. If they recognised the right of Representative Bodies like the Parish Councils to acquire land conipulsorily—if there was any logical justification for the acquisition of land conipulsorily—he thought that the labourers of the grass counties had the right to demand of Parliament that these powers should be extended to their districts as well as to other districts. He thought the justice of the case would be met by the re-introduction of the provision of the original clause that ample compensation should be given wherever permanent pasture was broken up. It was often said that the people should be brought back to the land, and that the people should be kept on the land; and, indeed, having regard to the increasing depopulation of the grass districts, the concession which he suggested was most desirable. It might be said that neither his Amendment, nor the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the Market Harborough Division could be accepted owing to the bargain which had been come to between the two Front Benches. But after the letter of the Leader of the Opposition, published in The Times that day, they were justified in raising these questions on their merits, temperately and moderately and reasonably in the House. He thought he had laid arguments before the Committee in favour of his Amendment which deserved consideration. However, if there was a disposition on the part of Members opposite to exclude the prohibition of the breaking-up of pasture where the land was acquired by voluntary agreement between the landowner and the Parish Council, and where the owner consented to the pasture being broken up, and still more if there were a disposition to accept the moderate Amendment of the hon. Member for Market Harborough, he would not press his own Amendment tea Division.

Amendment proposed, In lines 43 and 44, to leave out the words "shall not break up, or permit to be broken up, any permanent pasture."—(Mr. Channing.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

There is one point on which we are all agreed— namely, that permanent pasture is a very valuable thing, which is easily deteriorated, and with difficulty restored. As regards land taken compulsorily, we all feel the injustice there would be in taking land which may be worth £1 an acre, and restoring to the owner at the end of the lease laud which may be worth only 2s. an acre. There is a very distinction, which the House will recognise, between hind taken compulsorily and land taken by agreement with the owner, and that is that when land is taken compulsorily scrupulous care ought to be taken that the owner does not suffer when it goes back to him. We are all agreed upon that. Now, my hon. Friend has raised in his Amendment a point which, I confess, is an extremely strong one. It is that this principle ought not, however, to be applied so as to restrain one of the most valuable advantages which can be given to the agricultural labourer—namely, a grass holding which he can use for the benefit of himself and his family without interfering with his ordinary labour. It would be wrong in every way to restrain such an arrangement when it may be arrived at by voluntary agreement. I must say that the matter had been brought before us in a. very strong way by my hon. Friend in his references to the grass country where there is a small amount of agricultural land available for allotments, and where if we took land at all for the purpose we must take grass lands. The Government, however, do not feel itself in a position to depart without the general consent of the Committee from the clause as it stands upon the Paper, but we think that with the general consent of the House it will be desirable to exclude from the operation of the clause eases where such land is acquired by voluntary agreement. In voluntary cases, where the landlord consents to the pasture being broken, I think such an arrangement would be a very good one. It would clearly be a fair thing, where the landlord is a consenting party, to allow permanent pasture to be broken up, but nobody can expect the Government to introduce a change in the Bill which would lead to compulsory measures. I will ask the Leader of the Opposition whether it would not be a good arrangement, in cases where the landlord was willing, to surrender a portion of his pasture lauds for the purposes of allotments? In fact, I cannot see how they could prevent the arrangement in such cases.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he was bound to respond to the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The right hon. Gentleman felt himself bound to maintain the clause in its present shape, unless by some general agreement the particular modification he suggested was adopted. The modification, as be understood it, was that where the landlord in writing expressed his agreement in the taking of pasture laud for the purpose of allotments, that the liberty of the landlord to come to such an arrangement should not be interfered with. That appeared to him to be a not unreasonable proposal.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR.CHANNING

said, he had to move that the words be added—

* MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

said, on a point of Order, he would ask whether if this Amendment were accepted his Amendment standing next on the Paper would be out of Order?

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, what they really wanted was to add the words without the consent of the landlord in writing. If that were moxed it would be accepted, and they would proceed to the next part of the clause.

MR. LOGAN

again rose—

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

said, if his hon. Friend would pardon him he would point out that his (Mr. Logan's) Amendment would come in equally as well afterwards.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

moved— At end of paragraph (c) of Sub-section 4, to insert the words "without the consent in writing of the landlord.

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

MR. LOGAN

said, he had now to move to insert, after the last Amendment, the following words:— Except that in any rural parish in which permanent pasture land forms not less than two- thirds of the cultivated area, and the available arable land is shown to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board to be unsuitable for allotments, the Parish Council may hire compulsorily, and break up for allotments, such a quantity of permanent pasture land as the Local Government Board may sanction. It was possible that hon. Members not acquainted with grass counties might think it was undesirable that any modification should be made in the clause in the direction indicated; but gentlemen who represented Midland counties were keenly alive to the difficulties that would be entailed on many of their constituents were the clause to be passed in its present form. Indeed, this was a matter of the deepest concern to a large number of men whom he represented in the House of Commons, and he should be failing in his duty if he did not press their claims on the attention of the Committee. In taking Leicestershire as a whole, permanent pasture formed seven-ninths of the cultivated area. In the Harborough Division the proportion was even greater than that, because the arable land lay chiefly in the north of the county. In Derbyshire four-fifths of the cultivated area was laid down in permanent pasture, and this proportion would apply to parts of Northamptonshire, Warwickshire, Rutland, and some parts of Yorkshire, he could quite understand that the Government in wishing the clause inserted had in their minds such counties as Lincolnshire: and in a county like that where, he believed, not more than one field in every four was a grass field, in such a county there would lie little or no difficulty in securing a sufficient quantity of suitable land for allotments; but in the division of Leicestershire which he had the honour to represent there were many villages without a single ploughed field near, where, in fact, the only piece of suitable laud was the portion now under cultivation as allotments. Therefore, hon. Members would understand that if the clause were passed in its present form the labouring men in his division of Leicestershire would not participate in the benefits of the Bill as regarded allotments. He was willing to admit that in Leicestershire they had a certain number of allotments. Portions of the permanent pasture had been broken up. He was thankful it was so, for if they had not had their allotments he did not know what would have become of the men this winter. But they needed more allotments, and he believed he was right in saying that probably there was no county in England in which allotments were more appreciated or better cultivated than in Leicestershire. But not only did they need more allotments, they needed them at a cheaper rate. The rents of allotments in Leicestershire were much too high, and unless the agricultural labourers there got the compulsory provisions of this Bill they would not be able to get any redress in that direction. As proving his contention that they needed compulsory powers to enable them to make better terms with those who had allotments to let, he would read a, few words spoken by an authority who could not be called one of "the new Radical Party"—the Earl of Jersey—who, speaking in the House of Lords, said— It was very likely there might not lie so much demand for additional allotments as was sometimes supposed, but the introduction of a practical measure with fair and compulsory clauses would have a most beneficent effect in reducing the very high, and, in some cases, extortionate rents exacted for allotments. Now, he (Mr. Logan) could assure the President of the Local Government Board that he fully appreciated the difficulties of the, situation he was in, having regard to the compact made with the Party opposite. He fully realised that if this clause was passed as it was, the great wrong it would inflict on numbers of the Leicestershire agricultural labourers would be done at the instance of Conservative Members opposite, and he would even now ask them if they did not think that, as a matter of common justice, they might allow the agricultural labourers who lived amidst grass land to be placed on terms of equality with agricultural labourers in other portions of the country? There was a great demand in Leicestershire for allotments, and therefore the Amendment he now ventured to move was of great importance to the people there. He found from Returns which he had just received from 39 villages in the Harhorough Division that the rents which the allotment holders paid averaged 57s. 6d. per acre, as against 31s. per acre charged to the farmers for similar land. In fact, he found that everywhere the agricultural labourer was charged out of all proportion to the rent charged to the farmers for similar land. He would give four instances in different parts of the Harborough Division to prove this. In the neighbourhood of Oadby the farmer was charged from 20s. to 40s. per acre, while the poor labourer was charged 65s. to £7 5s. 6d. per acre. In South Kilworth the farmer was charged 12s. 6d. to 32s. per acre, and the allotment holder—

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

rose to Order. He wished to ask whether the rents of allotments were relevant to the Amendment?

* THE CHAIRMAN

Certainly. The hon. Member is seeking to show that if more land were available for allotments the rents would be lower for the agricultural labourer.

MR. LOGAN

said, the hon. Member opposite did not realise the land hunger that existed in certain portions of England. He wished to prove that it did exist, and that there was an absolute necessity for acquiring hind by compulsory powers. In South Kilworth the farmer paid for allotments 12s. 6d. to 32s. per acre; the agricultural labourer from 23s. to 48s. In Bitteswell the farmer paid 15s. to 37s. 6d.: the labourer £3 12s.; and in the neighbourhood of Lutterworth the farmer paid from 20s. to 80s.; the agricultural labourer from £7 4s. 6d. to £10 18s. per acre. In short, the rent charged to the allotment holder was double that charged to the farmer. Did the hon. Member opposite realise what that meant? Farmers were unable to make both etuis meet at their present rents, yet the agricultural labourer was expected to pay for his allotments double as much out of his miserable wages as the farmer paid for his land. No wonder, with such rents charged to agricultural labourers, the labourers had decreased by 100,000 in 10 years, and yet hon. Members opposite were anxious to find means to keep the labourer on the land. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners and Charity Commissioners—two bodies usually credited with being quite as Conservative as hon. Members opposite—had both in the Harhorough Division granted pieces of permanent pasture to be broken up for allotments at a rent of about£2per acre. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners quite recently granted a second piece of permanent pasture in the same village to be broken up, and had not charged, or attempted to charge, anything as compensation for breaking it up. In another village in the Harborough Division the Charity Commissioners had recently permitted an old piece of turf, which formed a portion of their estate, to be broken up for allotments, and had only charged the same rent as when the field was used for pasture. He did not think it possible the House of Commons, which had given in this Bill such a proof of its earnest desire to promote the welfare of the agricultural labourers, would consent to be less liberal than the two bodies he had referred to. The clause as originally drafted made ample provision for compensating the owner in the event of land being broken up. He was perfectly willing that that provision should be reinstated in the Bill; but lie would suggest that it should be reinstated in a different form, because as it originally stood the owner was to have compensation paid to him whether the land was ever thrown on his hands or not. The agricultural labourers had no desire whatever to do wrong to any man. They were willing to pay full and ample compensation, and therefore be (Mr. Logan) could not for the life of him see what more owners could ask for. Hon. Members declared that it was their earnest desire to keep the labourer on the laud, but he could not be kept on the land unless he could live there, and, speaking for the agricultural labourers of Leicestershire, he would say they could not be kept there unless their pasture land could be broken up. In the name of the agricultural labourers of the Harborough Division, he implored the Committee at the eleventh hour to give the same rights to labourers in grass counties that would he exercised, by labourers elsewhere— namely, the right to use compulsorily powers to hire small quantities of land that they might "work out their own salvation." The question which the Committee had to decide was a plain and simple one—it was as between regard for turf on the one hand, and the salvation, nay, the lives, of the agricultural labourers on the other. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, After the words last inserted, to insert the words, "Provided nevertheless that in any rural parish in which permanent pasture land forms not less than two-thirds of the cultivated area and the available arable land is shown to the satisfaction of the Local Government Board to be unsuitable for allotments, the Parish Council may hire compulsorily, and break up for allotments, such a quantity of permanent pasture land as the Local Government Board may sanction."—(Mr. Logan.)

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

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said, the hon. Member had spoken of the necessity of doing something for the labourers in the grass counties. He (Mr. Wyndham) was not acquainted with the hon. Member's county; but in the neighbourhood of whore he lived, in Cheshire, he knew villages where the ploughed fields in sight might be counted on the fingers of one hand, and where the labourers were receiving 16s. and 17s. a week. That was in a district where a large quantity of arable land existed.

MR. LOGAN

said, he was speaking as regarded the compulsory provisions of this Bill.

MR. WYNDHAM

said, the labourers got 16s. and 17s. per week in places that were not broken up. These very districts where the permanent pasture had not been broken up wore, in fact, the oases in the desert of English agriculture at the present time. If, by breaking up the pasture land, a heavy loss was sustained, it could not be thrown upon the landlord—every labourer would have to bear his share; and the County Council would be saddled with a large depreciated property. The hon. Member, he thought, would be willing to allow that there was some force in this argument. The Committee could not take a more unwise course than to adopt an Amendment of this nature.

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he had expected that some one on the other (the Opposition) side of the House would have expressed his views generally, in response to the appeal of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. In view of the success which had hitherto attended spade cultivation, as compared with the ordinary methods of agriculture, he did not think the point made by the hon. Member who had just sat down— that the land would be depreciated in value if broken up—was a good one. He thought his hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire had put his case with great force, and he could assure him that he had very great sympathy with his views. The Government were, however, bound to adhere to the clause as it stood; but his hon. Friend might he confident that, if the result of the Bill was that injustice and inequality were suffered by the labourers in the grass counties, a remedy would be applied, no matter whether a, Liberal or a Conservative Government were in power. He asked his hon. Friend to take that comforting assurance on behalf of the constituency which he so worthily represented. If the provisions contained within the framework of this measure were inadequate, a remedy would inevitably be found. There was great difficulty, no doubt, in legislating for different parts of the country. The present measure, however, was, in many respects—like the Allotments Hill, and the Small Holdings Bill—it was, and must be, an experiment, and it' it were found to work injustice, his hon. Friend might rest assured the remedy would be very near at hand.

MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

said, this Amendment offered a good opportunity to the Members of the Opposition of showing that real sympathy which they professed to have with the agricultural labourers. The Amendment seemed to him to only affect the had landlords. It provided that if, in a, parish whore more than two-thirds of l he land was grass land, the Local Government Board wore satisfied that there was not laud suitable for allotments, they might allow the Parish Councils to obtain some grass land compulsorily for the labourer. On the other hand, hail landlords would be able in the grass counties to prevent the agricultural labourer getting any suitable allotments in many parishes. They ought not to allow the agricultural labourers in grass counties to be placed under this disability, and they ought to be placed in the same position as the labourers in any other county. This would not be the ease, however, unless the Amendment were carried, because bad landlords in every instance would be able to prevent the labourers obtaining allotments. He hoped, therefore, Members opposite would evince their sympathy with the agricultural labourer by showing they had no objection to this compromise, the clause being altered in the way his hon. Friend desired. If the Amendment were pressed to a Division, he should have great pleasure in supporting it.

MR. COBB (Warwick, S.E., Rugby)

expressed the hope that this Amendment would be accepted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that if the labourer who happened to live in a grass county was not able to get a suitable allotment, and that was found to be an injustice, a remedy would be found, not only by any Liberal Government, but by any Conservative Government. He did not know that his right hon. Friend was able to speak for a Conservative Government, and it would be a great satisfaction to hon. Members on his side of the House if they could have a rather more authentic assurance from the Front Bench opposite that if, hereafter, a Conservative Government should find this injustice to be manifest it should be remedied. The hon. Member for the Market Harborough Division had stated that this restriction had been distinctly imposed by the terms which the Opposition had made with the Government, lie could not say whether that was so or not, but they had this important evidence—that whereas the clause as it stood before the compromise did not contain this restriction, the clause as it stood after the compromise did. in these circumstances, he did not think it was unreasonable to ask right hon. Gentlemen opposite to express their views upon the matter, and if they could not agree to the restriction now being modified, to at least re-echo the assurance which the Chancellor of the Exchequer Save, that if this restriction was found to be a gross injustice they would when they came into Office remedy it.

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (Hereford)

thought the hon. Gentleman who last spoke might rest assured than when a Conservative! Government came into Office all that was a gross injustice existing anywhere would be remedied. There was not much harm in this Amendment. The chief objection to it was that it would cause allotments to be expensive in the places where they were allotted. Grass lands would let at £3, £4, and £5 per acre. The Parish Council, if it took the land, must pay the same rent as the person from whom it took it, and whether the land was broken up or not the Parish Council could not let it at less, but might have to let it at a higher rental. When the hon. Gentleman pointed to the fact that allotments were sometimes let at a higher rent per acre than was paid for the farm from which it was taken, it should be remembered that the farmer took the bad land with the good; he took the farm in the lump, whereas the allotment holder took out the best piece and took it in retail. It was not reasonable or fair, therefore, in these circumstances, that he should only pay the same rent which the farmer paid on the average and for the lump. There was one other consideration which seemed to have escaped the attention of the hon. Member. This was not a case of buying but of hiring laud, and at the end of 14 years it might be returned back on the hands of the owner. The land might have been broken up into small pieces, and thus rendered more difficult for the farmer to deal with. The Parish Council must, therefore, pay him compensation out of the funds levied from the whole parish; or else for 20 years, if the farmer wished to return the land to its former state, lie must be receiving less than what was taken from him compulsorily, because it took at least 20 years to make a good sward again.

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

desired to suggest a compromise. There were old pastures, some valuable and some not, worthy the name of pasture, and as a practical way of settling the question it would be well to let them know what, the real meaning of old pasture was, and that meaning might be its value for agricultural purposes. If land at £2 per acre might be considered as pasture laud valuable enough for old pasture let it be so, but laud below that value might be stated not to be worthy to be called old pasture, and might be broken up by the agricultural labourers for the purpose of allotments.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

said, the hon. Member for Hereford had stated that the Amendment might make these allotments expensive. But it, was a question whether the labourer in grass counties should have allotments or not, and he regretted very much that gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench could not give them some hope that if in future they found this a great grievance to the agricultural labourer they would not remedy it. It seemed to him, therefore, that the misfortunes they would suffer on the advent to power of a Conservative Government would be the great one that agricultural labourers' grievances were not to be considered.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 84; Noes 154.—(Division List, No. 417.)

MR. LOGAN

moved the following Amendment:— In line 44, at end, to add "(d) shall not require rent to be paid in advance. He was sure the principle contained in the Amendment would need no words of his to commend itself to all friends of the labourer in the country, and as, at the present time, they were all of them friends of the agricultural labourer he looked with great confidence for support from gentlemen opposite. As the Committee were aware, under the provisions of the Allotments Act of 1887 the authority might demand not more than one quarter's rent in advance. He was sure that in moving to insert words providing that the Parish Council should not require any rent, to be paid in advance he should have the support of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, because in 1887, when a similar proposal was made by the hon. Member for the Rugby Division, no less than nine of the present occupants of the Government Bench voted for it. Why, he asked, should the agricultural labourer of all the people in the country be singled out, and have such an insulting stipulation as this imposed upon him? He would ask, in the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the previous night, why should they apply to the agricultural labourer a, rule they did not apply to the tenant, farmers of England? Small holders all over the world were the best rent-payers; therefore, he claimed for the now tenants that wore to be created under this Bill the same fair treatment as was accorded to the tenant farmers of England, and he objected to their being insulted by there being imposed upon the Parish Council the obligation to ask them to pay their rent in advance. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 44, at end, to add "(d) shall not require rent to be paid' in advance."—(Mr. Logan.)

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

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

did not think the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment quite realised that it might deprive the Parish Council of the power of letting allotments in certain eases. There were agricultural labourers who were impecunious, and not by any means certain to pay the rent of the allotments at the end of the term, of whom the Parish Council might not be able to approve as tenants, but who might go to the Parish Council and say—"If you allow us to pay the rent of the allotments in advance we will do so in order lo induce you to let us the allotments." The Parish Council were only the trustees for all the electors of these allotments, and they might be willing to let allotments which otherwise they might be obliged to decline to do if this Amendment were carried. He did not in the least suppose that the Parish Councils or any other landlords of allotments would demand the rent, as a rule, in advance, but there might be the difficulty he had suggested if this limitation were imposed.

* MR. C. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

hoped the Government would accept this Amendment. He said this particular provision came into this Bill in a rather exceptional way. In the first draft of the Bill Section 7 of the Allotments Act of 1887 was incorporated as a whole, and there happened lo be in the first sub-section of Section 7 of the Allotments Act of 1887 provision that not more than a quarter's rent should be paid in advance wherever it was considered necessary by the Sanitary Authority to require it. Even in that Act it was probably intended to prevent the Sanitary Authority always, as a rule, requiring the rent in advance to limit the amount, rather than to give a new power. The provision stated that they should never require more than a quarter's rent in advance. He submitted that an enactment like this was liable to be misunderstood by people living in country villages, and the Parish Council might be apt to think that Parliament had intended they should always get a quarter's rent in advance, and therefore it would be better if this reference to a quarter's rent were omitted altogether. Such a provision might do harm in this way. The agricultural labourer would pay his rent from working his allotment, not from his savings. In Essex the agricultural labourer in general was not able to save, and therefore was not able to go on the land with capital. He was unable to find money enough to pay a quarter's rent in advance, and if he was to have an allotment it was idle to ask him to pay rent in advance. As the Committee were anxious that the labourer should be able to get these allotments, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would agree that the labourer should not be treated in an exceptionally unfavourable manner, but should be placed on the same footing as an ordinary tenant. As had been said by the right hon. Member for Bristol, it had never been usual for the landlords to expect the rent for allotments in advance; therefore he appealed, in the name of the labourers, to the Leader of I he Opposition, who had the matter within his control, to relieve the Government from any pledge they were under, and allow this small concession to he made.

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

said, the hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the Committee had appealed to him as if he had anything to do with this particular Amendment, but he and his friends on his (the Opposition)side of the House had nothing whatever to do with it one way or the other. He might observe that all the clause did as it stood was to give the Parish Council liberty, and all the Amendment did was to restrict the liberty of the Parish Council. They had throughout the whole of this Bill rightly gone on the line that the more they left those Parish Councils to manage their own affairs the better for them and for those for whom they were trustees. To come forward, therefore, in this particular case and say that the Parish Council should not manage its own affairs and not take any precaution as to ascertaining the solvency of a tenant, and to maintain the interest of those for whom they were trustees, appeared to him contrary to the general spirit which had animated the Committee and those in charge of the Bill throughout the whole of their pro- longed discussions. He quite believed that what the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend near him (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) said was perfectly true, and that the Parish Council would be very slow indeed to make use of the power of demanding a quarter's rent in advance, just as the owner of land let for allotments had, up to the present time, been slow to avail themselves of the power to get rent in advance. His right hon. Friend said he knew no case where the landlord had got rent in advance, and he thought probably that no Parish Council would ask for rent in advance. But why should they say to the Parish Council, "You shall not take the ordinary precautions of getting the rent in advance," and therefore, in other words, should not lot that land for allotments at all. The Parish Council would not be likely to let allotments to persons who were insolvent; and, in these circumstances, the only result of the Amendment would be that certain persons who might be able to make good use of their allotments would be precluded from obtaining from the Parish Council that credit they would otherwise obtain.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, the object of his Amendment was to guard against a danger that was apprehended very seriously by many farmers—namely, to provide against the taking of land compulsorily which, by reason of its being accommodation land or water meadows, it was necessary for the farm to retain. There might be several cases of the kind, of accommodation land, pasture land, or water meadows which, owing to its proximity to farm buildings, might be absolutely necessary for the working of the farm. There might be land from which a right of passage existed for accessibility to the farm, or there might be water meadows on a sheep farm, without the existence of which the farm would be ruined, or have to be given up. Under the existing provisions as to taking the land, where they had orders made by a County Council and confirmed if necessary by a Committee of the Houses of Parliament, he thought no great danger was to be apprehended that any land of the nature he had described would be taken, but he thought there was some ground for apprehension where they altered the mode of procedure altogether, and put a serious power into the hands, first, of a Parish Council, and, secondly, of a Government Department. He had the greatest respect and admiration for the way in which the duties of the Local Government Board were performed, but he could not help feeling, without any distrust of the Local Government Board, that the Board would never be in the position, say, of a Committee of this House, that it would never exercise the same discretion, and, therefore, it became necessary to legislate on these novel lines, and insert some additional safeguards to those required under the old methods of taking land. The case he referred to was a case in which no damage for severance could adequately meet the case; the farm might be entirely ruined, or, at all events, the tenant might have to throw up the farm and the remaining land be redivided. A further difficulty would arise out of this type of hiring, that the landowner would be unaware whether or not, after the term of 14 years, the land would be thrown back on his hands. In such a case, he thought it would be right to put an absolute prohibition on the hiring of land; but as he did not wish to go so far as that, he said that if the land was an integral part of the farm that the farm should be taken as a whole. It was solely with the view of preventing injustice being done in serious, and he hoped rare, cases, that he ventured to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 47, after the word "Act," to insert the words, "Provided that the Local Government Board shall not make an Order authorising the compulsory hiring of any land, which by reason of its being accommodation land or water meadows or otherwise is necessary for the proper working of a farm of which it forms part, unless the whole of the farm is included in the Order."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) Derby

thought that so far as any inconvenience or injustice could arise in the cases referred to by the hon. Gentleman, they were abundantly and adequately provided for by the present clause as it stood. As he understood the case of the hon. Member, it was that accommodation land, water meadows, or land otherwise necessary for the proper working of the farm, should not be taken unless they took the whole farm. Under the clause as it stood, first there would have to be compensation, and if it were land of the character described by the hon. Member that compensation would be very large, indeed, so high that it would have a deterrent influence on the Parish Council. That was already the provision in the clause. Besides that, there was the hearing before a person sent down by the Local Government Board, and he would ask if it was in the least likely that the Local Government Board would make an order authorising the Parish Council to take land of that character which would obviously be, from that point of view, most improper land to take? Therefore, the contingency was one that seemed to him in the highest degree impossible, and therefore putting upon the parish the monstrous necessity of taking the whole of the farm would be to exercise such an act of oppression that he had no hesitation in saying, from his own experience, had never been imposed under the Land Clauses Act. After their experiences of the Land Clauses Act, he hoped that no similar clause would be introduced into this Bill. It would act in the most oppressive way, but that he was afraid was the history of a great deal of the law of this country. Acts of Parliament were supposed to be the wisdom of Parliament, but he feared they were mainly in the interests of lawyers, and he would be no party to repeating an experiment that operated solely in the interests of lawyers. He thought there was abundant security in the clause its it stood, and that no Parish Council would go out of its way to take the kind of land described, and, therefore, that no real danger was to he apprehended.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

said, he noticed the Amendments standing on the Paper, one of them in the name of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing), which seemed only to affect the interests of the tenants themselves, and another in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), which seemed to affect only the interests of the landlords; but he could not help thinking it was possible that the President of the Local Government Board might be ready to accept a compromise, which was, that under this Bill there should be compensation both to the landlord and the tenant. If the tenant improved the land it was only right that he should receive ample and fair compensation, whilst, on the other baud, it was equally right the landlord should receive ample compensation for any deterioration his land had been subjected to at the end of the tenancy. He would not go into this matter at length, as it was highly technical, and as most hon. Members understood the question, and if any hon. Members did not understand it, those who did understand it would agree with him that it would be fruitless to attempt to argue it out in the short time left at their disposal in Committee. To say that there should be no compensation for improvements or deterioration seemed to him to be against the interests of good husbandry, and if was therefore in the interests of good husbandry that he moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In line 48, to leave out the word "On." and insert the word "Before."—(Mr. Strachey.)

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

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, that whilst sympathising with his hon. Friend, and being heartily in favour of compensation for deterioration of land, he must point out a serious objection to raising the question on this Amendment, and it was this: The Agricultural Holdings Act as yet did not apply to sitting tenants, therefore the Amendment would deal with a matter that was not open to them in the present state of the law. He thought it would be more convenient if the Amendment were withdrawn, and the question raised on one of the other Amendments.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. CHANNING

said, he now wished to move the Amendment standing in his name, with this alteration: after the word "determine," to strike out the words "under the provisions of the said Acts," and insert "by an arbitrator appointed as hereinbefore provided." If the two Front Benches could now agree to accept the principle of this Amendment, and that of the Amendment standing in the name of his right hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), it would bring about what he thought was absolutely a just solution of the difficulty before them, he disputed the contention, frequently made by gentlemen opposite, that the system of cultivation in allotments necessarily exhausted the soil. In the central town of his Division there was an Allotment Association that took land of poor value, not worth more than 12s. or 15s. an acre, as paid by the farmer previously, and that land had been so improved by cultivation and manure in its use as market garden land, that it was now fairly worth perhaps two guineas an aero. The question had been very rationally solved in his village. A noble lord, a landed proprietor in Northamptonshire, let some land to the Allotment Association on exactly the same terms as an agricultural tenancy, with compensation for improvements or for damage and deterioration. The question of whether the land was taken by voluntary agreement or compulsion made no difference in the relative values of the land. Obviously, if the land had been improved by the Parish Council as tenant, the Parish Council ought to be entitled to compensation from the landlord; and, on the other hand, if the tenancy had resulted in deterioration of the land, it was inconsistent with good policy not to make the tenant feel his responsibility in the matter. This was an experiment which they wished to succeed, and unless on the one side there was a possibility of reward for skill and enterprise, and on the other a penalty for neglect and bad cultivation, they would fail to settle the matter on sound lines. They insisted on this principle in the Allotments Association with which he was connected, and the labourers themselves regarded it as vitally important. Two other points justified the contention. The first was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) last night obtained the assent of the Government to the introduction of some very important words—namely, that the arbitrator was to draw up a schedule or description of the land at the time of the compulsory hiring, and that it should be open to the inspection of the landowner and the Parish Council. But what on earth was the use of that schedule if at the end of the tenancy there was to be no compensation to either party, either for improvement or deterioration? That was a valuable addition to the Bill, and embodied a principle now largely introduced into agricultural agreements; but to give it effect they should also introduce this provision, and give compensation on one side or the other. Allotment tenants under this Bill had a right to claim compensation for improvements under the Agricultural Holdings Act (except as to buildings), and under the Allotments Compensation Act by the clauses of the Allotments Act of 1887 embodied in this Bill, and if the tenants were to obtain compensation from the Parish Council for improvements, it was unjust not to allow the Parish Council to obtain compensation from the landlord at the termination of the tenancy for any increase in the letting value of the land. Otherwise, the result would be that the whole of the improvements' would go into the pockets of the landlords.

Amendment proposed, In line 49, to leave out the words "the landlord shall not be required to pay compensation," and insert the words "the Parish Council, as tenants, shall be entitled to obtain from the landlord any compensation due to a tenant under Section 5 of 'The Allotments and Cottage Gardens Compensation for Crops Act, 1887,' or under 'The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883,' and such compensation shall be determined by an arbitrator appointed as hereinafter provided."—(Mr. Channing.}

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he was afraid the proposal would introduce a great deal of confusion. He could not agree with his hon. Friend that there was very little difference between land taken compulsorily and land hired voluntarily. If they took land voluntarily the landlord made his own conditions with reference to the improvements, as they were called, that were made on the land, and there was an express or implied understanding that he would make an allowance to the tenant for the money laid out on the land in the improvements. But it was a very different matter to take land compulsorily and improve it against the will of the landlord, and then to charge him with the improvements. That was not what they would consider a just claim. He hoped the Committee would be content to leave the matter as it stood at present.

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

said, the Amendment dealt with only a portion of a very large question, and he understood yesterday that the Government intended to consider and bring up a clause with reference to the compensation to be paid to the landlord on putting the Act in force, not only for severance and for losses, but for what was known as "tenant-right." For himself, he could not see why a landlord should not be entitled to proper compensation against the Parish Council. There was no reason why the landlord or tenant—or whoever was entitled to the tenant-right—should not be entitled to receive the value of that right. The Parish Council would get possession of the land, and should make its own arrangements with the allotment holders, who would get the benefit of the tenant-right. Then the allotment holder also ought to have a, right to compensation against the Parish Council on the termination of his tenancy, and the Parish Council in its turn should have a right to compensation against the landlord on the surrender of its tenancy. In that way each party would have security. The value of the tenant-right ought to be paid in cash, as it was a benefit which the tenant got possession of and might use and consume during his tenancy, the landlord, when the land was returned to him, paying for whatever tenant-right there was, subject to depreciation. If some clause were framed on these lines, there was no reason why it should not work out so as to secure the tenant-right. The allotment holder in this way would be encouraged to work his holding—to put his labour into it, to improve it and make it productive. If, however, the allotment holder was to be only a yearly tenant without any tenant-right, and liable to be turned out on short notice, there would be no encouragement to him to improve the land. If the labourers were to have confidence in the scheme, and the scheme was to be a practical and workable one, this tenant-right should be provided for. He did not think the Amendment would carry this out fully. The hon. Member, like a good many Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, had landlord on the brain.

MR. CHANNING

said, he had begun his remarks with the frankest possible acceptance of the principle of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, which would secure ample compensation for deterioration. He could not be Fairer to the landlords than that.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, they had not got the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. They had only the suggestion of the hon. Member, and he (Mr. Bolton) dealt with the Amendment as he found it on the Paper, and it would only provide that the Parish Council as tenant should be entitled to claim compensation from the landlord. There was no provision that the benefit was to be handed over to sub-tenants. For all he knew, the Parish Council might pocket the compensation. In the case of a number of holdings laid out like a chessboard, on some of which the tenants had done their duty thoroughly, and on others of which the tenants had not done their duty, how was any balance accruing for tenant-right to be applied? Was it to go to the tenants who had improved the laud? If so, how was it to be apportioned? He maintained that there were practical difficulties in connection with the proposal of the hon. Member. The hon. Member went for the landlord—so long as he got compensation out of the landlord he did not care where that compensation went to; it might go to the right person or to the wrong person for aught he cared. In fact it was not a workable Amendment, and it did not deal with the whole of this large and important matter. When the Government considered the question of the compensation to be paid by the Council to the landlord on compulsory hiring, this larger question of the compensation afterwards for all the people who ought to he protected ought to he carefully considered.

MR. CHANNING

said, the hon. Member had found an extraordinary number of mare's nests. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He must claim the ordinary courtesies of Debate even from the noble Lord (Lord R. Churchill). If the hon. Member had looked into the matter he would have found that the Parish Councils would have to pay to the allotment tenants who had worked their land well the whole of the compensation, and would not be able to pocket the com- pensation. If it would satisfy the hon. Member or anyone else, he (Mr. Channing) would say that he would be willing to add the words of the right hon. Geutleman the Member for Sleaford to the words of his own Amendment. In fact, he would now do so—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member cannot make that Motion. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 174; Noes 76.—(Division List, No. 418.)

The CHAIRMAN ruled several Amendments out of Order.

* MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In line 61, after the word "minerals" to add the words "or of any accommodation land occupied by any person carrying on a profession or trade and useful to him in connection with such profession or trade He wished to know if this was out of Order, because the Chairman considered that it was covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. H. Hobhouse).

THE CHAIRMAN

Yes.

MR. T. H. BOLTON

Let me point out the difference between the two. [Cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I am quite clear on the point.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he begged to move an Amendment, which was not on the Paper, namely— To insert, after the word "minerals." the words "or the hiring of any land which is already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892. As the Committee would see, the object of this Amendment—which was in no way of a Party character—was to protect from the operation of the clause small holdings already created, the object of the clause being to create small holdings. Where land was already being used for small holdings there was no reason why it should be taken from those who had secured it under an Act of Parliament and transferred under a new Act.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Now Clause, At the end, to add "or the hiring of any land which is already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

said, he could see no possible objection to the Amendment. The object of the Government was to create small holdings, and not to destroy them, and therefore they would not wish land which had already been appropriated to be taken for allotments.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he did not wish to be captious, and his right hon. Friend had said, very properly, that this Amendment was not a Party question. He desired to ask a question. The holdings under the Small Holdings Act were, he thought, limited to 50 acres. He had always understood that one of the main objects Parliament had in view, and that Members on the Opposition side, certainly, had in view in creating small ownerships and allotments of land, was that the ownership of property should be based on a stronger foundation, and that there should be a larger number of persons interested in the soil—on the principle that the larger the number the stronger would be the resistance to any measures which might be proposed inimical to the rights of property. But the proposal before the Committee dealt in an unwelcome fashion with these theories. If the holdings which had been actually acquired under the provisions of the Small Holdings Act were to be exempted no great harm would be done; but if all holdings below 50 acres were to be exempted, it would be a very dangerous departure from legislation hitherto sanctioned by Parliament. It would stand on the same principle as a graduated system of taxation. It would be much as if they were to say that no holding of less than 50 acres was to pay taxes or rates or contribute to local or Imperial burdens. The effect of any such reservation and provision would be to remove as a Conservative force—of course, he did not mean in the political sense—from the body politic all occupiers and owners below the limit prescribed. If the Government would indicate that the Amendment if adopted would not go so far as he thought it might have a tendency to go it would satisfy him.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Ask the author of the Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, his right hon. Friend had only acted in the matter vicariously, moving the Amendment for another right hon. Gentleman who was absent. The Solicitor General might give the legal interpretation of the Amendment. That hon. and learned Gentleman would he to some extent responsible for the Bill when it left the House, and he (Mr. Lowther) was quite within his right, therefore, in asking him to stale what was the meaning of the words which they were asked to adopt. If they meant, or would he altered to mean, that holdings which had been actually acquired under the provisions of the Small Holdings Act were to be exempted from the operation of the Bill, although unsound, the matter was a small one, and it would not be necessary to trouble the Committee further. If, however, it went further—as he ventured to think it did—and exempted all holdings below 50 acres from the operation of the Bill, he maintained that it would be a dangerous provision. This was not merely an agricultural question, but a politico-economic question, which he thought went to the root of the legislation passed by Parliament during the past few years, he should be glad if the Solicitor General would give him an answer.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the Amendment said— Or the hiring of any land which is already owned or occupied as a small holding within the meaning of the Small Holdings Act, 1892.

MR. J. LOWTHER

Well, what is the meaning of that?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the meaning of the expression Small holdings for the purposes of this Act" was "land acquired by the Councils under the powers and for the purposes of this Act, which does not exceed 50 acres and exceeds one acre, or exceeding 50 acres, is of annual value for purposes of Income Tax not exceeding £50.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that when Amendments which were not on the Paper were suddenly proposed it was impossible for lay Members to see what their scope was without inquiring of the Law Officers or some competent authority. He did not suppose the hon. and learned Member would think that he had exceeded his right in the matter. As the Small Holdings Act was practically a dead letter, and no land existed which could be touched by the Amendment, he would not press his objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he wished to move an Amendment requiring the Local Government Board to lay an annual Report of its proceedings under this Bill before Parliament.

Amendment proposed, After the last Amendment, to add the words, "The Local Government Board shall annually lay before Parliament a Report of its proceedings under this section."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that it was a matter of practice for the Local Government Board to lay such Reports before Parliament, and therefore he had no objection to the right hon. Baronet's Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES (Durham, N.W.)

said, he desired to move his New Clause as to the registration of women. At the request of the Chairman he proposed to move it in an amended form, adding at the beginning the words "For the purposes of this Act."

MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE (interrupting)

asked if the Amendment was in Order, seeing that it referred to a Parochial Register, and there was no such thing in existence.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GOLDSMID)

The Chairman of Committees has decided that the Amendment is in Order, with the addition of the words "For the purposes of this Act."

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

rose to Order. He said the Amendment was in these words— For the purposes of this Act, all women who, if they were men, would he entitled to be placed on the Parochial Register of Electors as lodgers, freeholders, or persons possessing the service franchise, shall he placed on the Parochial Register. It had been already decided that the Parochial Register should consist of the Parliamentary Register and the Local Government Register bound together. No "women who, if they were men," could be put on the Local Government Register "as lodgers, freeholders, or persons possessing the service franchise," because no such persons, even if men, were on the Local Government Register. If ladies were put on at all it must be on the Parliamentary Register. He submitted that according to law no woman could be put on the Parliamentary Register either as a lodger, freeholder, or person possessing the service franchise. The New Clause, if carried, would be in direct opposition to what the Committee had already decided, and would practically be repealing the law as to Parliamentary electors.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, the observations on the point of Order of the hon. Member for Sunderland were not strictly correct, inasmuch as in addition to those who were at present Parliamentary electors and those who were at present county electors there were additional electors provided for in the Bill, who were to be assimilated to local government electors, but who were not local government electors at present. There was a provision for the registration of such electors already in the Bill.

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The matter is covered by Section 31, which says— The Local Government Register of Electors and the Parliamentary Register of Electors, so far as they relate to a parish, shall, together, form the Register of the parochial electors of the parish; and any person whose name is not in that Register shall not be entitled to attend a meeting or vote as a parochial elector, and any person whose name is in that Register shall be entitled to attend a meeting and vote as a parochial elector unless prohibited from voting by this or any other Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is proposing now to alter the Local Government Register of Electors for the purposes of this Act by the insertion of another clause. If that is agreed to alterations will have to be made on Report, but I do not think that the Amendment is inconsistent with the Bill.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said, the House of Commons had declared by means of an Instruction that power should be granted to the Committee to admit women for the purposes of the Parochial Register to identical rights of equality with men. There was, however, he thought a pretty general consensus of opinion that the most extraordinary erratic and anomalous conclusion had been arrived at by the Government as to the form in which they should clothe the right of women possessing the franchise. It was proposed to confer the franchise upon the very large class of men who had hitherto been excluded from the Local Government franchise without giving any counterbalancing or countervailing right to women whose position was identical in all respects with that of such men. He referred to the lodgers. Male lodgers had not hitherto possessed any franchise for local government purposes, neither was a service franchise known in connection with local government. Why had his right hon. Friend chosen to exclude women lodgers, women freeholders, and women who, if they were men, would possess the service franchise from the right of voting? He supposed there was some weighty reason for excluding them, but he was totally unable to discover what the reason was. He believed there was some idea in the mind of his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) that if equality were conceded to women in these matters there would be a manufacture by the upper and middle classes of lodger votes which those belonging to the poorer classes would be unable to manufacture. He did not think that such a notion ought to be regarded seriously, and he (Mr. Atherley-Jones) thought it was a fantastic idea. He did not believe nor did he think any one was warranted by past experience in believing that householders would manufacture lodger votes as suggested, because as a matter of fact the lodger franchise had been possessed for a considerable number of years in respect of the Parliamentary vote, and he had never heard any complaint of the manufacture of lodger votes. The people he sought to enfranchise were lodgers in the bulk, and he recognised that there might be a serious objection to the omission of urban lodgers, or tit any rate to a very large proportion of those who were known by that term. There were many people who said that if the lodger franchise were granted to the women of London it would be in certain constituencies a most undesirable thing. With that sentiment he entertained no sympathy. The only disqualification should be incompetence of mind or crime, and he did not think that any moral test should be applied to women any more than it should be to men. That objection did not apply to the parishes. The women who might be enfranchised in the parish might be the school-mistresses. Under this clause as it stood the schoolmistress would he deprived of a vote, while the female innkeeper would be permitted to exercise the franchise, and he might enumerate a number of cases of decent respectable women who would be deprived of the franchise by this extraordinary exclusion of his right hon. Friend. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would see that the anomaly he had referred to constituted a serious blot upon the Bill, and that, as far as the lodgers were concerned, it formed a real, substantial grievance to women who in name were admitted to the franchise, whilst in reality they were excluded from it.

New Clause—

(Registration of Women.) All women who, if they were men, would be entitled to be placed on the Parochial Register of Electors as lodgers, freeholders, or persons possessing the service franchise, shall be placed on the Parochial Register of electors,"—(Mr. Atherley-Jones,) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

LORD R. CHORCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I do not intend to detain the Committee long, but as I have always given votes against women suffrage in almost every form, I would like to be allowed to make a few remarks on this Amendment. In the first place, I think it a great misfortune to raise the controversy which must arise when women suffrage (tomes into Debate. I am struck by the terms of the Amendment—"all women who if they were men," &c. That seems to mo to raise the fundamental point at issue. I quite admit that all women, if they were men, would be placed on the Register. It is because all women are not men that many of those on this side of the House think that women have some disqualification at any rate for the sterner forms of political strife. I am not clear that the women whom the hon. Member would enfranchise under his Amendment possess merits beyond all other women which should single them out as a peculiar class to he benefited. First of all, like all supporters of female suffrage, the hon. Member puts a stigma on men. That is the invariable attitude of the supporters of female suffrage. The woman who is married is for all her life disqualified for exercising a single political right. I want to know what particular qualification the female lodger has. In the first place, I question very much whether you will find in the rural districts many female lodgers who occupy unfurnished apartments up to the value of £10 a year. That being so, the Amendment would hardly add to the Register a sufficient number of votes to be worth the consideration of Parliament. But very possibly it would include the service franchise. Who would gain by that? In rare instances, perhaps, dairymaids might come under that franchise, and perhaps laundrymaids might do the same, but also rarely and only on estates belonging to persons in a position of wealth. I know not what women in any quantity that would be sufficient to deserve the attention of the Committee you would add to the electoral roll by this Amendment. But I would submit to the Committee that this surely is not a subject to introduce into the Committee at the end of a long and protracted discussion. The Committee is not now representative in any way of the whole body of Members—not sufficiently representative for carrying a change of this kind. If you are going to carry female suffrage in your Local Government Bill carry it in a full House, and let the supporters of that great change in our constitutional arrangements muster as many as they can. I protest against a change of this kind, which Parliament has never yet assented to, being introduced at the fag-end of a Committee on a Bill which has never included female suffrage, and I protest against a small class of women being singled out from all other women, especially when that class has no peculiar merits of its own which entitles it to such a distinction. On those grounds, I shall certainly offer my opposition to the Amendment.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I quite appreciate the force of the noble Lord's reference to the fact that this is the 34th night of the Committee on this Bill. I thought we were within a measurable distance of closing the Committee stage, and it is rather undesirable to have this question, which was raised on the second clause of the Bill, now raised in the form of a New Clause at this period of the Committee's proceedings. But, of course, my hon. Friend is quite within his rights. He is perfectly entitled to take that course, and he is also entitled to describe the conduct of the Government as extraordinary, anomalous, and erratic. Under these circumstances, it becomes my duty to recall to the attention of the Committee what was the reason which induced the Government to take the course they have taken, and to show that such course has not been anomalous, extraordinary, or erratic, but that it forms part of one of those arrangements for carrying on the business of the House to which practically the House was a party, and which, I think, it would be inconsistent with the well-understood and high traditions of this House to depart from. The Committee will recollect that when the Order of the Day for going into Committee on this Bill was read, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. W. M'Laren) moved an Instruction to the Committee, empowering them to deal with the question of female suffrage in this Bill, and I think I may say upon the broadest possible lines. We went to a Division, and the Government were defeated. The Government did not object to the Instruction so much upon principle, but they thought it unwise on the ground of expediency. As, however, they were defeated, it became their duty to consider—and they very carefully did consider—to what extent and in what manner they could carry out what they thought was the feeling of the House. It was their duty either to say they would carry the Instruction out or reconsider the position of the Bill. It became my duty to come down to the House and tell the House the decision at which the Government had arrived. I pointed out that there were two questions raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crewe. The first question was whether marriage should be a disqualification for women who would be qualified as spinsters or widows to register their votes. Attention was called to a decision which had been given in the Courts of Law disqualifying women simply on the ground of marriage. The second was that which has been raised by my hon. Friend to-night. I stated the question with reference to the disqualification of married women very much as I have stated it now, and then I said that the House would see that there was another question involved in the proposal to enfranchise single women. I added— I think the House will see that that raises a very difficult question. It raises the question of the enfranchisement of single women who are lodgers, or who hold other qualifications for the Parliamentary franchise. I do not want to go into that question at present, but it is a totally distinct question from that of the disqualification of married women. The House is pretty well agreed upon the disqualification question, but I am not sure that we would be agreed if we attempted to discuss the other question involved in the Amendment. Now, what I would propose is this: I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and I on my part shall propose to insert a new clause removing the disqualification of married women altogether, where they are otherwise duly qualified to vote in local government elections, including those for the School Board, the Guardians, the County and Town Councils—in other words, to rescind or repeal the decision in the ease of 'the Queen v. Harrald.' I think that proposal deals fully and frankly with the matter, and I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. Well, that was a distinct proposal to the House of Commons on certain terms. I was followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who for many years has been a consistent opponent of female suffrage altogether. He was quite prepared to fight the question if it had been raised as it has now been raised by my hon. Friend; but he expressed himself as quite willing to accept the terms of the compromise. My right hon. Friend was followed by a Member of this House, whom nobody will accuse of having ever been slack in advocating the interests of the female franchise. No man has more boldly or consistently fought the battle of female suffrage than my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stausfeld), and he certainly, perhaps, next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney)—I may say perhaps equally with him—was entitled to speak with authority on the question. Well, what did my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax say? He said— With reference to the Amendment, he counselled his hon. Friend the Member for Crewe to accept the offer of the President of the Local Government Board with the limitation fixed upon it. There was also a speech delivered very much on the same lines by my late right hon. Friend (Mr. E. Stanhope), whose loss we all deplore, who expressed his views as a consistent opponent of female suffrage very much on the lines adopted by the noble Lord opposite (Lord R. Churchill), and who assented to the course the Government had suggested. What did my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. W. M'Laren) say? He was the accredited organ of the female suffrage movement on this Bill. It was he who moved the Instruction, and he has been a most consistent advocate of women's claims to the franchise. Speaking with perfect consistency and frankness, he said— He cordially accepted the offer of the Government, and would not ask the Committee to discuss the second Amendment, which raised a very much wider question than the question before t he Committee—namely, the enfranchisement of women for the purposes of this Bill on the lines of the Parliamentary Register. He accepted the offer of the Government to remove the disabilities of married women for the purpose of all local government elections. The Debate was practically closed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), who repeated that it was a prudent proposal that the female suffrage question should not be introduced into the measure except on the conditions accepted by the Government. Well, on the faith of this arrangement many Members who have a strong feeling on this question have gone away, and I say that under these circumstances it would he breaking down those honourable understandings which have always existed in this House if we accepted my hon. Friend's proposal. I have honourably carried out my bargain with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. W. M'Laren). He is aware that the Chairman compelled me to confine my clause to "the purposes of this Act," and he will remember that when challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who said that such would be the case, and asked me whether I was prepared to move the re-committal of the Bill, I said I was prepared to do so, and I have put down a Motion to that effect, so that the words "for the purposes of this Act" may be struck out of my clause. I think I am justified under these circumstances in asking my hon. Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) not to carry this matter any further, and to withdraw the clause.

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

The extremely clear statement which my right hon. Friend has just made renders it unnecessary for me to say more than a very few words. If I had risen before him, I should have recalled, though I am afraid not so clearly as he has done, the proceedings in Committee on this point, and I endorse every word he has said. Necessarily, on the merits of this question, I am at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones), because his clause is a copy of my Amendment, but that does not in the slightest degree affect my determination to adhere to the bargain I have made, and I should be guilty of a very gross breach of faith if I did not urge him to withdraw his clause. I sincerely urge him to withdraw it, and I am convinced that that is the best course he can take in the interests of the cause we both have at heart. I have taken the opportunity of consulting a large number of those who are as much in favour of justice to women, and the enfranchisement of women, as I am, and we are all agreed that it is the right course to stand loyally by the arrangement entered into with the Government on the second clause of the Bill, and embodied by them in the new clause which was carried a few days ago, and to refrain from giving any support to my hon. Friend. That being the case, I feel sure that he and those who agree with him will not desire to take a Division, which would not reflect in any degree the feeling of many hon. Members on this question. Either they would have to vote against him, which would he an extremely painful thing to many of them, or they would have to refrain from voting at all. The Government have been absolutely loyal and true to their pledge. My right hon. Friend has stated that he will complete the fulfilment of that pledge by moving the re-committal of the Bill, in order to strike out the words "for the purposes of this Act." I would therefore ask my hon. Friend not to press his clause.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, he should like to have an opportunity of taking a note of the present position. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had given a promise to re-commit the Bill, if necessary, in order to extend the operation of the clause to Town and County Councils, and he asked the hon. Member for Durham not to press his Motion under the circumstances, as many hon. Members had gone away on the faith of that promise. But he would like to remind the President of the Local Government Board that those who had gone away included a very large number of Members who had strong objections to this particular form of women's suffrage, objections not general, but specific, on the ground that it was a form intended for the rich and not for the poor. When they went away it was well understood that it was not in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to redeem his promise. They were all agreed that the sooner they got done with the Bill the better, but it was now proposed, at the end of weary Debates, to re-open the whole question. If the Bill passed in its present shape, and applied to Town and County Councils, the effect would be to create what were practically property votes and to multiply the number of fagot votes. Entertaining that view, he wished the hon. Member for Crewe to understand that if they were compelled to re-commit the Bill—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! It is irregular to discuss a proposal to recommit the Bill which is not before the Committee.

MR. STOREY

said, he would not, of course, after that attempt to discuss it, but he would content himself with pointing out that were the Amendment passed it would be absolutely imperative, inasmuch as there was no Registration Court in existence which could deal with voters other than Parliamentary voters as such and local government voters as such, and therefore the creation of a new registration, which the Government did not contemplate, would be involved.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I wish to point out to my hon. Friend that the course the Government have taken is that to which they are pledged, and consequent upon the vote of the House. We gave an undertaking to carry out the judgment of the House, and having given that pledge we are bound by it.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he entirely concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Crewe. Those Members who had gone away because they knew that the change of which the hon. Member for Sunderland spoke could not be effected without the re-committal of the Bill also knew that the Minister in charge of the Bill had given a pledge, and was bound by it.

MR. ATHERLEY-JONES

said, that in asking leave to withdraw the Motion, he wished to explain that there was nothing in the public declarations of the President of the Local Government Board to indicate that he would not in his clause make provision for female lodgers. He would have moved this at an earlier stage had it been possible, but the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment had only recently been put on the Paper. He was bound to say this in self-vindication.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, he wished to move a New Clause providing for the transfer of school-attendance powers to District Councils. The position of the School Attendance Committee was at the present time extremely anomalous. In the boroughs they were appointed by the Borough Councils; in some urban sanitary districts they were appointed by Urban Sanitary Authorities, and in others by Boards of Guardians, while in all rural districts they were appointed by Boards of Guardians. This Bill would affect them in two ways. First, by breaking up to a certain extent the School Attendance Committee, so far as they were appointed by the Guardians, because the ex officio members who now formed a large proportion of the Committee would no longer exist; and, in the second place, by establishing in every district a new and reformed Council, which to his mind was far preferable to the Guardians for exercising school attendance powers. His clause would not in any way interfere with parishes and boroughs which had School Boards of their own, but its object was to take the power of appointing School Attendance Committees out of the hands of the Boards of Guardians, which was not a desirable authority to exercise that power, and to put it into the hands of the District Councils, whether rural or urban. These Councils would be able to exercise their power either by a Committee of their own members, or by delegation to the Parish Council of a large parish, which could appoint an efficient attendance officer of its own. Thus the question of school attendance would he divorced from the administration of the Poor Law, and would, in his opinion, be better dealt with than at present. The clause did not affect London, or the Municipal boroughs, or the large urban authorities which now appointed the School Attendance Committees. He had tried to condense it as much as possible; and if it erred in any way now it was because it was too short; but he thought the principle, if not the form of it, might be confidently recommended for the approval of the Government.

New Clause—

(Transfer of School Attendance Powers to District Councils.) As from the appointed day there shall be transferred to the Council of each rural district and of each urban district, not being a borough, the powers and duties of the School Attendance Committee (if any) acting for the whole or part of the district. And each such Council shall, within the district or such part thereof, but subject to the provisions of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1876,' respecting School Boards, be the Local Authority for the purposes of that Act; and may act either by a committee of their own members, or, if they think fit, in respect of any rural parish, by delegation to the Parish Council of that parish, and in either case may authorise such Committee or Council to institute any proceedings, or do any act winch the Council might have instituted or done. The expenses incurred by a Rural District Council under this enactment shall he defrayed out of a fund to be raised out of the poor rate of the parishes in which the Council act for the purposes of this enactment according to the rateable value of each parish. Put where a Parish Council are authorised to act for a parish, the expenses of the Parish Council, and of any officer appointed to enforce attendance or institute proceedings in or for such parish, shall be a separate charge on the rates of the parish,"—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.) —brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. ACLAND

I agree with much of what the hon. Member has said as to the desirability of transferring the powers with regard to school attendance from the Hoards of Guardians to the District Councils. Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Local Government Board in the last Administration, promised to embody some provision on that point in the District Councils part of the Bill of 1888; there was, indeed, a Bill of the nature put forward by Mr. Llewellyn which the late Government pledged itself to support. I can only tell the hon. Member for Somerset that the Government have more than once considered whether they can put such a provision in the present Bill. They have, however, come to the conclusion that it would perhaps overburden the measure, and that it would affect the doctrine held by the Government that in the Bill they merely deal with the election of Guardians and not with their duties. I am informed on good authority that there are considerable drafting complications in connection with the question on points regarding areas and rates, and, while agreeing with the hon. Member in principle, I think the wisest course would be to prepare a Bill on the subject for next Session, which if passed by general consent could, so to speak, catch up the present Bill, and thus the question of school attendance would, after consideration by the House, be embodied among the duties of District Councils when they come into existence.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

I entirely sympathise with what has fallen from my hon. Friend as to the desirability of separating this work from that of Boards of Guardians, and am glad to hear what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. It certainly has long been felt that everything connected with the education of children should in every way be separated from work connected with pauperism, and I regret that as the Government are favourable to the general principle they did not at an earlier period formulate clauses carrying it into effect. There is, however, some force in the contention that it interferes with the duties of Guardians. But I hope a Bill dealing with the subject may be introduced very soon, and I recommend my hon. Friend not to press his proposal, as in connection with such a Bill other questions might advantageously be dealt with in view of the general wish to interest Parish and District Councils more distinctly in the education of our children. At the same time, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the adhesion of the Government to the principle of his clause.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

Sorry as I am that the Government cannot see their way to accept this clause I thank them for the promise to deal with the question in the future, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite also for his adhesion to the proposal.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

said, while agreeing with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that every taint of pauperism should be removed from education, he hoped the Government would not act hastily in the matter. The fact was, that in dealing with the question of school attendance they required an authority intimately acquainted with the condition of the people, and the Boards of Guardians were better qualified in that respect than either District or Parish Councils could be. He therefore hoped the Government would not too hastily promise the introduction of a Bill on these lines, but would first carefully consider the matter.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Postponed Clause 58 (Construction of Act).

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he understood by the first section of the clause that the definition of "parish" in the Local Government Act of 1888 was dropped, and they were thrown back on the definition in the Act of 1889.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Thrown forward.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he would put it in that way if the right hon. Gentleman liked. The difference was that their definition included Overseer.

MR. HANBURY

said, that as under the Act of 1888 the expression "parish" applied to part of a parish, and as they were going in some cases to give Parish Councils to parts of parishes, he thought the definition in the Act of 1888 was much better than the definition in the Act of 1889.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was the opinion of the draftsman and of the authorities of the Local Government Board that the definition of "parish" in the Act of 1889 was much better, and it was on that definition that the whole Bill proceeded.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

asked whether there was any objection to put into the clause the express definition of "parish"? It would be a great convenience if that course were adopted.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would consult the draftsman on the point; but he thought that if they included one definition from the Interpretation Act, they must include all the definitions.

MR. GOSCHEN

asked how the words would affect the case which he had raised early in the proceedings of the Committee—namely, the case of an ecclesiastical district, separate from the parish, which might be constituted a parish for the purposes of this Act by the County Council? Would not the words practically exclude these parishes from the benefit of the Act?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

was understood to say that such parishes would not be injuriously affected by the definition.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 33, line 2, after the word "district," to insert the words "or in the County of London or any county borough. In page 33, line 3, at end, to insert the words "The expression 'election' includes both the nomination and the poll.

Amendment proposed, In page 33, to leave out lines 7 to 13, and insert the words,—"The expression 'ecclesiastical charity' means a charity, the endowment whereof is held for some one or more of the following purposes:—

1. (a) For any spiritual purpose which is a legal purpose; or
2. (b) For the benefit of any spiritual person or ecclesiastical officer as such; or
3. (c) For use, if a building, as a church, chapel, mission-room, or Sunday school, or otherwise by any particular Church or denomination; or
4. (d) For the maintenance, repair, or improvement of any such building as aforesaid, or for the maintenance of divine service therein; or
5. (e) otherwise for the benefit of any particular Church or denomination.

Provided that where any endowment of a charity, other than a building held for any of the purposes aforesaid, is held in part only for some of the purposes aforesaid, the charity, so far as that endowment is concerned, shall be an ecclesiastical charity within the meaning of this Act; and the Charity Commissioners shall, on application by any person interested, make such provision for the apportionment and management of that endowment as seems to them necessary or expedient forgiving effect to this Act. The expression shall also include any building which in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners has been erected or provided within 40 years before the passing of this Act entirely by or at the cost of members of any particular Church or denomination."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

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

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

proposed to leave out the word "means," in line 1 of the proposed Amendment, in order to insert "includes." It often happened, after an Act of Parliament was passed, that certain subjects arose which the moment they were mentioned it was said that the Act must have intended to include them. If the word "means" was allowed to stand, it would exclude a number of little extra subjects, such, for instance, as ornaments and the furniture of Sunday schools, which everyone would hold came within the phrase "ecclesiastical charity."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 1, to leave out the word "means," and to insert the word "includes."—(Mr. Byrne.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'means' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that great pains had been taken in drawing up the definition, but he did not think that any mischief would he done in accepting the Amendment.

MR. WARNER

said, he thought the Amendment would make the definition very vague, and lead to a good deal of litigation.

* SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

said, it was always dangerous to put in the word "includes." When they said "means" they made a definition, but the word "includes" meant little or nothing at all, for it left the door open to any other subjects.

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, they were now dealing with matters I going back a century. It was impossible for anyone to be wise enough to say that they had included everything, and therefore it was safer to use the word "includes" than the word "means." "Includes" was not a binding word, because it would have to he proved that that which was brought forward was really an ecclesiastical charity.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked whether the clause was not prepared according to the terms of the compromise between the two Front Benches, and whether, if the Amendment were accepted, the door would not be opened for a further extension of the definition of an ecclesiastical charity?

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he was sorry the Government had accepted the Amendment, for it made a serious change in the meaning of the clause.

SIR J. RIGBY

I have a great deal of experience in these matters, and I cannot imagine anything that could be brought in by the Amendment. I might challenge my hon. and learned Friend sitting opposite or my hon. and learned Friend who proposed the Amendment to mention a case. In all probability it will be inoperative; but it would be a great pity if by adhering to the narrow word "means" we excluded something which some of us think of now, but which till would agree is an ecclesiastical charity if mentioned.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, the Solicitor General had expressed the fear that at some future time something might arise which ought to be included, and which the word "means" might be held to exclude. "Sufficient for the day was the evil thereof." When that contingency arose their descendants could amend the Act. To deal with the present, this clause was the result of a great deal of negotiation between the Front Benches, and he contended that its terms should be rigidly adhered to, as its amendment might open the door to some possible extension of the definition of ecclesiastical charity.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government did not think there was any real question of principle involved in this matter. The Government must be guided by the opinion of the Solicitor General, a Law Officer of the highest distinction, and they were told by him that the proposed word "includes" would have no operative effect, but that it was the proper word.

MR. W. ALLEN

said, that some authorities held that the Amendment would not alter the clause in the least; others that it would alter it considerably. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn till the Report stage in order that the draftsman might be consulted as to its effect.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 125.—(Division List, No. 419.)

Word "includes" inserted.

MR. BYRNE

proposed to insert, in line 10 of the proposed Amendment, after "of," the words "or for any other purpose connected with." The object of the Amendment was to include such matters as ornaments or the furniture for Sunday schools, for which money might have been left, and which he was sure the Government intended should be dealt with by the clause.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 10, after the word "of," to insert the words "or for any other purpose connected with."—(Mr. Byrne.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he did not think his hon. Friend's Amendment ought to be agreed to. It was all very well to provide for possible cases of omission, but the insertion of words so wide and vague as those proposed would lay the clause open to a great deal of doubt and difficulty. His hon. Friend mentioned ornaments for Sunday schools, but ornaments for Sunday schools were not ecclesiastical charities.

SIR F. S. POWELL

asked what of the case of a library?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he thought that would be already covered. They were dealing with buildings that were used as Sunday schools, and for maintenance, repairs, and improvements, and he ventured to think that the putting of a library into a Sunday school was already covered.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

said that, as he understood, there were a large number of endowments left for the purpose of ornamenting churches, and he would like to know whether they would come within that definition or not?

SIR J. RIGBY

Undoubtedly, as an ecclesiastical charity.

Question put, and negatived.

* MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

rose to move the following Amendment:— In line 14, after the words "and such," to insert the words,—"(f) The expression 'ecclesiastical charity' shall also include any building or room erected or provided within 40 years before the passing of this Act, the ownership, trusteeship, management, or control whereof is by its constitutions vested exclusively in ministers or officers of any particular Church or denomination and their or any of their nominees, or in any of such persons. He said, this was almost exactly the same Amendment as he moved on Clause 6, and withdrew only on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman—which be had well fulfilled—that they should have it fully discussed on the Interpretation Clause. There was one change in the Amendment which was important. The Amendment originally ran that— Any room vested in the officers or members; of any particular Church or denomination shall be considered an ecclesiastical charity. He proposed to limit that by the additional words taken out of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman himself— Erected or provided during the last 40 years. All they claimed was that all parish rooms which had been erected or provided in the last 40 years and vested in the way he had stated in the Amendment should be regarded as an ecclesiastical charity. He would not recapitulate all the arguments he used on the former occasion, but would briefly state that he then pointed out that as the Bill then stood parish rooms which were not used either for Divine Service or vested specifically for Church uses were not included in the definition of an ecclesiastical charity, and he quoted the Archbishop of Canterbury to show that a large number of rooms did not come under either of the two heads, though they were part of the social organisation of the Church, and were used for a variety of purposes, including their being always a centre of Church organisation. There were many such rooms which they distinctly claimed were part of the property of the Church and ought to be included if the right hon. Gentleman's pledge that the property of the Church was not to be touched by the Bill was to be carried out to its full extent. Since he moved the Amendment to Clause 6 one or two changes had occurred in the Bill which rather altered the position. In the first place, by the extension of Clause 29 to give to urban districts and boroughs the rights of appointing trustees to charities, which under the Bill were to be conferred on Parish Councils, of course a much larger number of parish rooms were affected than before, because although many of the parish rooms were in the country there were still more in the towns, and in the towns and the urban districts the Church had spent a greater amount of money in providing these rooms. The second change was this: The right hon. Gentleman had attempted to carry out his pledges most honourably, and had attempted to give them the parish rooms by making the alteration in his definition of an ecclesiastical charity, which now appeared on the Paper and by adding these words— The expression shall also include any building which in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners has been erected or provided within 40 years before the passing of this Act entirely by or at the cost of members of any particular Church or denomination. He had no doubt that was a perfectly fair attempt to meet them, but he humbly ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that these words were altogether inadequate. He (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) had given a very close study to this question, and he had been unable to discover a single parish room which would be safeguarded by the words the right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce. The reason was that these words would only properly apply to rooms provided or erected by a single donor, and in the case of a single donor either the room had not been conveyed, in which case it remained his private property and was not brought into the Bill at all, or if it had been conveyed the single donor had generally been careful to vest it especially for Church uses. But the class of rooms they wished to save were the large class which had been built up by the subscriptions of Church people. How would it be possible to prove that in every single case every penny given towards the erection of a parish room was given by a member of a Church of England or, in the ease of Nonconformists, by a member of one particular denomination? It was perfectly impossible. Many Church people might subscribe to a Nonconformist charity, but surely that did not give them the right to manage that charity. In the same way Nonconformists might subscribe towards the erection of a parish room, but that would not in any way give them the right to control the room or make it in any sense whatever a public room. There was nothing like a concrete case, and he would give one. In his own county there was a parochial hall at Southborough, which was built in 1883 at a cost of £3,000, all of which, except £350 collected by the late Vicar, was raised by the two present clergymen of the two parishes by subscription. The hall was vested in the two clergymen, the Churchwardens of the two parishes, and three laymen co-optated; it was used for a great variety of purposes and concerns, including political meetings of both parties, Friendly Society dinners, and all general purposes, and for the Church organisation. How in the world were they to prove that all this £3,000 was subscribed exclusively by Church people? It was absolutely impossible. Again, take the case of a, bazaar. He supposed a large number of rooms had been erected from the proceeds of bazaars. Suppose a Nonconformist bought a pincushion or subscribed to a raffle, would that room have been built entirely at the cost of members of any particular denomination so as to come within the right hon. Gentleman's definition?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The point would be—who got up the bazaar?

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

ventured to submit that by the words of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment the Charity Commissioners could not take that line, and they would look at the fact that, although the subscription list or raffle had been got up by the Vicar, it also contained the mimes of some Nonconformists as subscribers or buyers. Although he acknowledged the fair way in which the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to treat them all through the Bill, be submitted that the right hon. Gentleman's words were absolutely inadequate to meet the case. To give as a test the subscribers was not a real test. The only test which could be conclusive was in whom was the room vested; therefore, he proposed this Amendment, which took as that test the nature of the trustees or managers, and he would suggest that the words he had put down really carried out the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman. They could judge who subscribed by the persons in whom the room or building was vested. If it was got up to be a Church room, they might be sure it would be vested in Church officers or members exclusively. The people who had subscribed would not have allowed it to be so vested if that had not been their intention. Then as to the limitation. In the old days Churchwardens were treated very much as civil officers, and there was nobody, perhaps, in whom such buildings could have been vested except the Vicar and Churchwardens; therefore, he said, let the older rooms remain. They would give them up on the supposition that it might have been doubtful at that time whether Churchwardens were regarded as ecclesiastical or civil officers. But he said that in the case of rooms erected during the last 40 years no such doubt could arise, as there were plenty of other people, apart from the Vicar and Churchwardens, in whom such rooms could have been vested if it had not been intended that the particular room or charity should be an ecclesiastical charity, and the fact that it was vested in them exclusively proved, to his mind, that in was intended to be an ecclesiastical charity. He and his friends had not the slightest desire or wish to claim anything to which they did not consider they had got an absolutely indefensible right, and they were anxious to defend not only the property of the Church, but the property of every other single denomination. He earnestly hoped the Government would accept the Amendment,

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment. In line 14, after the words "as such." to insert the words—"(f) the expression 'ecclesiastical charity' shall also include any building or room erected or provided within 40 years before the passing of this Act, the ownership, trusteeship, management, or control whereof is by its constitution vested exclusively in ministers or officers of any particular Church or denomination and their or any of their nominees, or in any of such persons."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Gentleman has put his case very fairly, and has, no doubt, urged strong arguments in support of the clause he has submitted to the House. Before I deal seriatim with its provisions, I should like to say a word or two of a personal character. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the pledges I gave on the Second Reading of this Bill, and he has been good enough to say that I have done my best to fulfil those pledges, and I am obliged to him for making that statement. As he is aware, many attacks have been made upon me in the course of the last few weeks for having been guilty of breaches of faith and dishonourable conduct, and I should like the Committee to understand the position. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying it is my duty to fulfil those pledges, and not only is it my duty but my desire. I must ask him, and I must also ask the Committee, to bear with me while I quote verbatim what were the pledges I gave with regard to parish rooms. So far as the former portion of my clause is concerned, I apprehend that the provisions, as they are not challenged by amendments, are regarded as practically satisfactory. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill I said this— We have been charged with attempting to rob the Church of its parish rooms. There is not, however, anything in the Bill which empowers the Parish Council to interfere with the trust of any charity whatever. I should like to repeat now, as a good deal of misapprehension has been created in the public mind, that we do not propose in this Bill to interfere with the trusts. There is no power given to anybody in the Bill to interfere with any trusts whatever. The changes made in the Bill, so far as these trusts are concerned, are only changes in the parish trustees and not in the trusts themselves. They must take the charity as it is, and administer it according to the law. Thus, though they will have the power of electing representatives on the Boards concerned, they will have no power to alter the trust of parish rooms. A parish room must be erected on somebody's land. If it is erected on glebe belonging to the Church, the freehold and control over it is in the Rector, and no one can interfere. Then the parish room is in many cases, erected on property bought with money collected by the clergyman or minister, and is vested in him without any declaration of trust, and the building, viewed in the aspect of an ecclesiastical charity, will not come within the purview of the Bill. And this is the case the hon. Member alluded to— But where a room is vested in trustees for use as a reading-room or library, or for an educational purpose, it is not a case of an ecclesiastical charity. It is a general public purpose; and if anybody has been put upon that trust in a representative capacity, it is right that the Parish Council should be represented upon it. But if you ask me about what is called a mission-room erected and held for the benefit of the Church or any denomination that has found the funds for it—a room held for divine service or Sunday schools—then I think that is a charity which should be outside this Bill, and which I believe is outside the Bill. Now, Sir, I venture to submit with some confidence to the Committee that so far as the clause now stands, there is, I may say, an ample and liberal fulfilment of all my promises. The hon. Member says there is nothing like a concrete case, and he gives the case of Southborough, and says there are already five trustees, there is a trust deed, and this charity cost something like £3,000. My first reply to the hon. Member is this: It will not come under the purview of the Bill until 1920; that is, 40 years must elapse from the foundation, no matter what the purposes of the trust are. The trust, I understand, is not for religious purposes. It is used for a variety of public purposes, and is vested in trustees, some of whom are co-opted and elected. I frankly admit that case would come within the operation of this Bill, and that elected trustees would he placed upon the trust after the expiration of 40 years.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

There tire no elected trustees. They are simply the Vicar and Churchwardens of the two parishes, and three laymen who are nominated by them.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Churchwardens are elected each year. They are not there in their capacity as individual gentlemen, being Churchwardens, but they are there qua Churchwardens, and to that extent they are elected. That seems to put the hon. Gentleman outside this clause already. That is, in the main, a secular charity. Is it not for the interest of that parish, 40 years hence, when, probably, those originally interested in the foundation may have either passed away or ceased to take any active interest in public affairs of that nature, that the wise and prudent people of that town shall have some voice in the management of what was intended to be a benefit and a considerable con venience for themselves? I do not think there is any injustice in that. But what we are dealing with is an ecclesiastical charity. I want to put to the hon. Member the broad lines of this clause. If a building is used as a church or chapel, or mission room, or Sunday school or otherwise, that will include Church organisation, it will include Dorcas meetings, sewing meetings, tract meetings, missionary meetings, tea meetings, if you like, of a religious character, and all other purposes which are involved in what the hon. Member called Church organisation, and which I quite admit is a suitable expression. And the concluding words of the clause are— or otherwise for the benefit of any particular Church or denomination. That does seem to me to cover every religious, or I might say semi-religious, purpose it is possible to conceive. It seems to me to cover the whole Church property of every kind and description. Well, then, the hon. Member takes 40 years, and proposes it as a compromise. In reference to the last clause in this subsection, using the words of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I say this is a clause which has been very well considered, and from which the Government are not at liberty to depart. I think the interests of those whom the hon. Member has represented all through these Debates were carefully safeguarded when the terms of the clause were fixed, and we cannot extend it in a direction which would be contrary to the pledges we have given, and to the views which the Government have expressed through out. The mere vesting of property in an ecclesiastical officer does not make that property an ecclesiastical charity. For the reasons I have given, we cannot accept this Amendment.

* SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, he would not occupy the time of the Committee for more than a few minutes, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when this question was previously raised by his lamented Colleague, the late Mr. E. Stanhope, on an earlier stage of the Bill, the President of the Local Government Board promised that opportunity would be given for full and adequate consideration of this clause. The right hon. Gentleman had been honest and true to the pledges he had given; but he had overlooked a case in which they (the Opposition) were entitled to have an extension of the words of the clause. He knew of no compromise in this respect, and he was bound by no word. No doubt the Government Amendment was the result of negotiations to which he was not a party, and by which he was not bound. He understood from those to whom he owed allegiance that he and others were at liberty to move such Amendments as they thought ought to be moved, to discuss them, and, of course, accept the decision of the Committee on them. He admitted that since a former discussion on this question the President of the Local Government Board had gone a considerable way to meet their views in this matter, and the Government Amendment now suggested removed several of the difficulties formerly mentioned; but the right hon. Gentleman had not met the case of the rooms to which the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) alluded. The fair inference to draw from the fact that within the last 25 years rooms of this kind had been vested in the Vicar and Churchwardens was to say that the persons who subscribed the money for the purchase of the land, and the erection of the rooms, intended to give them to the Church for Church purposes and Church organisation. A parish room was in many cases erected on property bought with money collected by the clergyman or minister, and was vested in him without any declaration of trust, and the building, viewed in the aspect of an ecclesiastical charity, would not come within the purview of the Bill. That was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman himself, as he understood; and it was a statement of the case so clear and so straightforward that he did not think it necessary to modify a single word of it. He could take cases of individual subscription to such rooms—for the purposes of their erection—of Non-conformists. It would be a positive insult to say that, when a man gave two guineas or £5 to a room got up partly for Church purposes and partly for secular purposes, he did not recognise this claim. Such rooms were under the control of the Church authorities in 99 cases out of every 100. He did not agree with the latter part of the clause which did not afford protection to a single parish room; and he hoped the Government would consider the necessity for such protection.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, if he followed his hon. and learned Friend throughout his argument, he was dealing with a case in which the room had been built by subscriptions which could not be traced.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Collected by the Church.

SIR J. RIGBY

I do not care by whom collected, but by some public-spirited people who think it unnecessary to impose any trust.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Churchmen.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that might be, but they had not thought it necessary to impose any conditions on the making of it over to certain persons, the Vicar—

SIR R. WEBSTER

And the Churchwardens. That is my case—that the money was collected by the members of the Church, including the Vicar, and that the building and the land were vested in the Vicar and the Churchwardens.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he had a difficulty in following his hon. and learned Friend's illustration. They could not vest buildings and land in the Vicar and Churchwardens—they were not a Corporation. There was no trust at all. He must point out that the case raised by his hon. and learned Friend was not touched by the Bill. No Court in the Kingdom could bring these persons before it as a trust.

SIR R. WEBSTER

Not if they conveyed it to another party?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, certainly not. Here he was on firm ground; there could be no absolute doubt about, his statement of the case. They must agree, if necessary, to differ about the fundamental rule—

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he wanted to deal with the principle of the matter, and ho referred to the case of a room, to be used as a parish room, conveyed to the Vicar of the parish. Let his hon. and learned Friend deal with that.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he knew what the Court would say (here. It would not infer that the room was to be used for any ecclesiastical purpose at all. It would hold that it was to be used as a parish room.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he knew several cases where the purpose was ecclesiastical.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, his hon. and learned Friend might know the intentions of the individual: but the view suggested had not been upheld, and they were not, going to uphold it now.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he did not think this controversy was in any degree one between the Church and Nonconformity. They were dealing with certain foundations founded not more than 40 years ago. He was prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that any powers given to the Vicar and Churchwardens in olden days were given because Local Authorities were imperfectly constituted or non-existent. Many of these trusts had been created for secular purposes in connection with Church organisation. Much good had thence arisen. He thought that in this matter Churchmen were claiming no privileges that they were not prepared to extend to others; and he hoped the Government would try to meet the arguments they had advanced.

* VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)

said, he would put it to the Committee whether Members on both sides were not agreed as to the intention on this subject. Was there any Member of the Committee who was anxious in any way to take away from the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, or any Nonconformist, Body the management of rooms erected for the purposes of these denominations and to the management of which they were entitled? If there was no Member of the Committee who wished to act thus, surely there was room for agreement between them. Take the Solicitor General's definition of the situation. Granting that all Members of the Committee wished to reserve to the Church of England, or whatever Religious Body it might be, the management of the parish rooms, which really were erected by the energy and initiative of that body, how did they stand? The Solicitor General told them that if a room had been erected without any trust it was excluded from the provisions of the Bill. He told them that if it had been erected and put under trust, and the funds had been entirely subscribed by Churchmen, it would be excluded from the Bill; but that if one Nonconformist had subscribed a single half-crown, it would be included in the Bill. If it, so chanced that a charitable Nonconformist had subscribed half-a-crown to a Church room, was there any Member who would say that that room should be taken away from the Church and given to the parish? Or, if a Churchman similarly subscribed to a room provided by a Wesleyan minister, would any Member say it should be taken from the Wesleyan Body and given to the parish? Yet that was the position which had been foreshadowed by the Solicitor General. If the Government objected to the words of the Amendment it was natural that, they should oppose them; but how could they refuse to insert words which would carry out what he believed to be their intention and that of every fair-minded Member of the Committee? Should it, he said that, because the Church had been an active agent in the creation of parish rooms, and had not created them exclusively for the use of Churchmen, but had allowed them to be used by the public generally, therefore the Church should be singled out for shabbiness of treatment, which would never have been attempted ad hoc in the case of Roman Catholics, Wesleyans, and other Religious Bodies? They only knew of a compromise through the public Press; and so far from their being asked or bound to accept the words of the clause, they regarded them as wholly and ludicrously inadequate, and such as could never have been agreed to by re- sponsible representatives of the Bishops or leading laymen of the Church. He maintained that the Minister in charge of the Bill had himself repudiated the words of the clause by the expressions he had used on the Second Reading of the Bill, as to retaining for the Church and for any Religious Body control of the parish rooms which, in the common sense and fair use of the terms, had been provided and erected by that Religious Body.

SIR W. HARCOURT

was understood to say that the noble Viscount had made a strong appeal to the Government on this question, but he (Sir W. Harcourt) had already stated to the Committee the position in which the Government were placed. They had as the result of a compromise accepted the words of the original Amendment, and they could not now, whatever their individual feelings might be upon the subject, go back from them. Some hon. Members asked if the Bishops had been consulted; but it was not to the Bishops he had referred when he spoke of the understanding which had been entered into, but to authorities much more extensive and important. The Government felt themselves bound by the words of the clause, and having accepted those words on their part, they did not feel in a position to depart from them. That being so, it was really in vain for the noble Viscount to expect a modification of the words, or a change which the Government were not at liberty to accept. That was a fair statement of the position of the Government, and no amount of appeals made to them such as those they had just heard would be of any avail. Under the circumstances, the noble Viscount and his friends, perhaps, would be satisfied to take the opinion of the Committee.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, there was no desire to prolong the discussion, inasmuch as the Opposition had made their case clear. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would forgive him for pointing out that, applying the language of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to this point, their contention was that the Amendment now before the Committee was in exact accordance with that language. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not be surprised if he (Sir R. Webster) could not altogether acquiesce in the view that the Opposition should be bound by the words of the clause.

MR. BYRNE

said, the Government conceived that, having regard to the circumstances under which they put in the words which now stood in the clause under discussion, they did not feel themselves at liberty to depart from those words whatever the personal views of individual Members of the Government might be of them. But that reason did not apply to Members sitting behind the Front Ministerial Bench. Before going to a Division he would appeal to the well-known fairness of hon. Members sitting behind the Ministerial Benches not to force the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman upon the Committee. Church rooms ought to be left under the control of Churchmen. There were many charities founded for the benefit of the people at large, which though got up by clergymen of the Church of England had been subscribed to by well-wishers. There was an opportunity now of getting rid of an objection which in the future would cause a great deal of friction. The principle of the Amendment was that if the funds had been entirely provided by members of the Church they would be protected from parish interference, but that if a single £5 note had been given by one well-wisher not a member of the Church towards the same object the funds would come under the provisions of the Bill. To give an illustration. Here was a form of conveyance to trustees which he believed was not very uncommon— Conveyance to trustees of a building to be called the Parish Institute and Working Men's Club —of such-and-such a place— to be held and used for ever upon the trust for the benefit of all parishioners of such parish in such manner and subject to such rules and regulations as the Vicar and Churchwardens of the said parish and such other persons as they shall associate with themselves shall from time to time order and direct, provided that the building shall not be allowed to be used for any political purpose whatever. Could anyone imagine that a person subscribing for the purpose of the erection of a room of that nature would not have it full in his mind that the management of the room was to be left with the Church authorities? As he had said, he appealed to the common fairness of hon. Members, who were not bound by any sort of compromise. He would ask them, before going to a Division, not to give their support to a policy which was calculated to endanger the good feeling between different sects which it had been their object during the last 15 years to establish by the provision of these rooms. The policy of Churchmen had been not to confine the use of these rooms to members of their own body, but to admit to them members of other Religious Denominations. In no less than three cases that he knew of at present the erection of buildings of this kind were in contemplation, but action was delayed owing to uncertainty as to the form the Bill would fake. Of course, however the Bill was drafted, a lawyer would find very little difficulty in driving a coach and four through it, but the danger he feared was that injury would be done to the good feeling between the different sects which by means of these rooms they were all anxious to foster. The Government were about to narrow and straiten that good feeling. The point at issue was simply as to a word. The Government in their Amendment said "entirely" at the cost of Churchmen. If they would add "or mainly" if would be on evidence that they desired, as the Opposition desired, to see good feeling existing amongst all denominations throughout the country.

MR. W. ALLEN (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

said, the discussion had been carried on as if it referred solely to Church rooms. ["No, no!"] An hon. Member had asked if the Bishops had been consulted.

VISCOUNT WOLMER

said, he had specifically referred to Wesleyan rooms.

MR. W. ALLEN

said, he did not think the Bishops had any more right to be consulted on a question of this kind than leading Nonconformist Ministers.

VISCOUNT WOLMER

We were told that this was a compromise which bound the whole Church.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

No.

VISCOUNT WOLMER

I brought these words in in reference to that.

MR. W. ALLEN

said, he was in there-collection of the Committee. He believed that if any Nonconformist Body had put up a room that was to be confined solely to non-ecclesiastical purposes, and their ministers and congregations had been the trustees of that room, they would have no objection to members of the Parish Council being put on the trust. He could not see any reason why Churchmen should object to such a proposition, unless they wished to use their parish rooms for proselytising or political purposes.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, he could not conceive why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should say that the Government were unable to depart from their proposal. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to imply some obligation of which they were not aware. It was news to him, and, he ventured to say, to every Member of the House. All that they knew about a, compromise was that the Government had promised to make certain concessions, but that did not appear to be any reason why they should not make further concessions. For the right hon. Gentleman to speak as if he was under a stern obligation—apart from which, of course, the right hon. Gentleman could not go—was to use an argument which had no correspondence to the realities of the case. The hon. Member who had just sat down said that Churchmen had no business to be considered more than Nonconformists in this matter. He (Viscount Cranborne) agreed with the hon. Member. Churchmen desired that the rooms of Nonconformists should be protected just as much as they wished their own rooms should be protected. It was true the hon. Member who had last spoken had said that the Nonconformists did not want that protection. He was a better authority on that than himself (Viscount Cranborne), but all he had to say as a Churchman was that Churchmen did want their rooms protected. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had told them that those who administered the trusts would administer them fairly, and that there was no risk of their being violated. Well, the Opposition did not think that the trusts would be violated, but they maintained that the money had been subscribed for these rooms with a view to assist and complete the ecclesiastical organisation of the parishes. Those who administered the money and managed the rooms had, with the universal consent of the public, done so with that view and object. It was not a question of the violation of the trusts, but of the spirit in which the money was originally subscribed and the object with which the whole enterprise was originally started, and which had been carried on by the energy of the Churchmen from the time these rooms were established down to the present day. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, to mitigate the terrors of Churchmen, said that the words in Sub-section (c) would cover a great number of eases in regard to which complaint was made, but that sub-section was subject to the words "held for one or other of the following purposes." They were not speaking on this Amendment of definite trusts, but of money subscribed to a well-understood object without a definite trust. It was those cases they desired to cover. What possible objection could there be to the Amendment? There were a large class of parish rooms which it was admitted must be protected—namely, rooms the funds for the erection of which had been entirely subscribed by Churchmen. The Government admitted that these rooms ought to be protected, no matter whether they were avowedly devoted to secular purposes or not. All the arrangements have depended on the actual terms of the trust the Government had cast aside. In the case where a parish room had been built by money, the bulk of which had been subscribed by Churchmen, the building would come under the operation of the Bill, if a single Nonconformist had subscribed a £5 note to the building fund. The Government said that case was a strong one in their favour, and that such a room ought not to be called an ecclesiastical charity within the exceptions of the Bill But, admittedly, even in the worst case, the greater part of the money would have been subscribed by Churchmen, with the object of securing the organisation of the parish. Churchmen would be aggrieved by the Government proposal. They had a right to expect that the object for which they had exerted themselves and subscribed their money should be carried out. It mattered not what other people had done while the avowed object of those who had got, up the funds had been to place the rooms in the hands of ministers of the Church of England. He earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government would, even at this eleventh hour, consider whether they could not proceed one step further. They had no right to disestablish trustees unless they could show that they had failed in their duty. It could not be said that the trustees had failed to administer the trusts honestly and properly. They had done their duty according to the implied intention of those who subscribed the money, and the Government had no right to disestablish them. This was one more example of the attacks to be made on the Church of England; but it was not only the Church of England that, would suffer, for the adoption of the proposal of the Government would result in the drying-up of those sources of benevolence that were absolutely essential for the well-being of the State. He knew a case where a large landowner had conferred a great many benefits on the parish in which ho lived, but who was restrained at every step he took by the thought of what some Radical Parliament, led by some Radical Government, might do with the endowments he conveyed to the parishioners. He (Viscount Cranborne) could not exaggerate the supreme importance of respecting most rigidly everything touching the benevolence of the public so that instead of being cut short it might be increased in time to come. He hoped these points would receive the careful consideration of the Government.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, he wished to emphasise the situation in which they found themselves at, this, almost the last, stage of the Committee. The Amendment before the Committee had been moved in a speech of great ability and moderation, which brought conviction to the mind of everyone who heard it, oven, he believed, to the mind of the Solicitor General—

SIR J. RIGBY

Certainly not,

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that no doubt the Solicitor General was obliged to defend the position of the Government. Lawyers often took different sides on different questions, and he found, as a layman, that however convincing a speech delivered on one side might be, it was certain to be answered by one equally convincing on the other side. The Solicitor General had made a speech full of technical law.

SIR J. RIGBY

Substantial law.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that whether of technical or substantial law, at any rate a speech of law. But there was a still stronger point he (Mr. Talbot) wished to submit to the Committee, and that was the condition of things in which the question had been left by the Cabinet Ministers who spoke for the Government. One he had not heard, but he had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman speak in the House very often. Of course, they all knew there were few better Parliamentarians than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, if he had any arguments, never failed to adduce them. But on this occasion he had not adduced a single argument against the Amendment. All he had said was that he was not at liberty to discuss it, and they might rest assured that when the right hon. Gentleman said that he had not much else behind to say. They (the Opposition) could, therefore, emphatically say that they had won on the merits of the case. he would go further and say that they had won upon a, still more important issue, and that was upon an appeal to the President of the Local Government Board to redeem the pledge he gave on the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, that the Government had no intention to do anything which could injure the Church, of England in any way. The right hon. Gentleman gave them an assurance that he would safeguard those interests. Well, here they had at stake what was avowedly and admittedly a Church interest. They had an Amendment which Church people deemed to be of the highest importance for the organisation of many of the parishes of the country. They appealed, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman to redeem his pledges which on the Second Reading he (Mr. Talbot) had said must be translated into words in the Bill. They acknowledged the value of his Amendment, but they held that those words required to be supplemented by further words. If they appealed in vain, at any rate they had done their best. They had tried to put this matter temperately before the Committee, and if they failed they would fail only because they were in a minority. As the noble Lord the Member for Rochester had said, the refusal of this Amendment would be a heavy blow to the generosity of Churchmen and others, and it would also be a heavy blow to the cause of toleration. Churchmen desired to open their doors wide to till who would come in, but he feared the result would not be what was desired if it was to be said that the only buildings which should be protected were those upon the doors of which was inscribed "No Nonconformists shall enter here."

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 102.—(Division List, No. 420.)

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, ho wished to move the addition of only two words, to give the Government an opportunity of meeting fairly the demands which had been made in the previous part of the Debate. It was to insert, after the word "entirely," the words "or substantially." He conceded at once that the question which the Amendment raised was to a considerable extent that which had been discussed upon the last Amendment, and he therefore did not intend to prolong the discussion, or repeat at any length the arguments which had been made use of already. But the position was less different. The clause of the right hon. Gentleman opposite conceded that there was a point to be met. It conceded what he was quite sure they were all aware of—namely, that it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention to meet that point, and the only question which now arose was whether, assuming that to be so, the wording of the clause proposed was adequate to the occasion— whether, in other words, it was effective for its purpose or not, or whether it was illusory. Having regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it was the intention of the Government that where buildings had been erected at the cost of any particular denomination the Bill should not apply so far as the appointment of trustees was concerned, but he submitted that the words of the clause did not carry out that intention, and the object of his Amendment was to express it in clear and practical language. Under the clause as it stood the onus would be on those who asked to be exempted to prove to the satisfaction of the Charity Commissioners that the cost of the building had been absolutely and entirely defrayed by a particular denomination. He knew in the North of England buildings such as Church Institutes and Mission Rooms and Parish Rooms had been raised, not merely by the members of the denomination who had taken charge of the undertaking, but out of funds to which members of other denominations had casually contributed. If such subscriptions had been made, the application to exempt the building would fail under the present clause, because it would be impossible to satisfy the Charity Commissioners that the building had been erected entirely by one denomination. It was preposterous to suppose that anyone who had taken part in such a useful movement would seek to claim proprietary rights over such building. He was satisfied, also, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not mean that such a case should carry with it such consequences. The Opposition were desirous that the clause should secure what they were certain it was meant to secure. His Amendment would have that effect, and would provide that where, say, 99 per cent, of the funds had been provided by one denomination and only a very small amount had been provided by others, the building would come within the exemption. In the previous Amendment there were technical considerations which made the discussion and the division a matter, perhaps, of some difficulty. But betook as the basis of his Amendment the language of the right hon. Gentleman himself in charge of the Bill. There need be no question of departure from the terms of any compromise in connection with the acceptance of this Amendment, because he was sure the words he proposed to add would meet the feeling on both sides of the House. He hoped, after the discussion which had taken place, a friendly and reasonable solution of the difficulty would be found in the words he proposed.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 24, after the word "entirely," to insert the words "or substantially."—(Sir A. Rollit.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

Although this Amendment is limited to two words, it is substantially the Amendment we have been discussing for some time. The arguments used in support of it are precisely those addressed to the Committee on the former Amendment. I have nothing to add to what I have already said. The Government have done their best to arrive at what they consider a just solution, and what they believe to be a satisfactory solution, of the question. They have arrived at that, and they are unable to depart from it. The hon. Member has said that the words of this clause were framed by my right hon. Friend, but they were not. We have taken these words because we were sincerely desirous to come to what we hoped would be a satisfactory solution of this question. As I say, we have accepted these words, and we cannot depart from them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has stated that, in his opinion, the words of the clause as proposed form a just and satisfactory solution of this question. I am quite certain the right hon. Gentleman and his friends think the solution a just one, but I can hardly believe that they think that it is satisfactory. The view of the Opposition is that the interests of the Church are not adequately protected, and if my hon. Friend goes to a Division I shall support him. We think that the words which throw the whole burden of proof upon the Church, and which might probably in their strictest interpretation prevent a building being regarded as an ecclesiastical endowment if some absolutely insignificant and trifling part of the whole cost happened to be contributed by somebody not belonging to the Church, does not afford a satisfactory solution of this question. I desire to state that Her Majesty's Government have in the most honourable manner fully carried out the arrangement that has been arrived at, and I am glad of having this opportunity of making that declaration publicly. I trust, however, that, as the language of the Amendment undoubtedly operates harshly, the Government, either now or at some later stage, will see their way to give a more liberal concession than is contained in their present proposal, and one which will properly meet the essential justice of the case.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 99.—(Division List, No, 421.)

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, his next Amendment had for its object the definition of the term "ecclesiastical officer," and he thought the Government would recognise the desirability of accepting it.

Amendment proposed, In line 25, at the end, to add "'ecclesiastical officer' shall include organist, bellringer, clerk, sexton, or any person holding a similar office connected with any Church or denomination."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

SIR G. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

said, that surely the hon. Member could not be serious in proposing that a bellringer should be an ecclesiastical officer. They might as well include the pew opener, the old lady who cleaned out the church, or the laundress who washed the Vicar's surplice.

MR.H.H. FOWLER

We are advised that the term "ecclesiastical officer" covers the organist and various other officers of the Church, and we prefer to leave the clause as it is.

SIR R.WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire bad attempted to throw scorn on the Amendment, lint he knew well it was a fact that there were in this country a great many pecuniary trusts which hail been created for organists, bellringers, and clerks; and they would not be included in ecclesiastical officers unless there was a Definition Clause. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman told them, on the authority of the Law Officers of the Crown, that these officers did come within the definition: but, with till due respect, he was bound to say that that was not his view. The right hon. Gentleman told them they could not put a definition in a Definition Clause, but at present they had no definition of what "ecclesiastical officer" meant.

SIR W. HARCOURT

We really cannot go into details. If a bellringer is an ecclesiastical officer, ho will be covered by the Bill; if he is not, he will not be. I do not think there is any necessity for mentioning the bellringer by name, or else we might as well introduce the proverbial church-mouse.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, the reply of the right hon. Member was most, unsatisfactory. Let them take the case of the organist. He had it on high independent authority outside the House that there were endowments devoted to the maintenance of the organist and his work; and Parish Councillors, who might be at variance with views professed in the church, were to be appointed to look after him. What possible objection could there be to [Hitting in those words, which would prevent so ridiculous and absurd a thing occurring? The Parish Council ought not to have any authority over the organist; and the Government had far better accept these words.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

As to the next Amendment, dealing with charities not confined to a single parish, I have to say that we have had an investigation made into the number of these charities in three different counties— Devon, Cheshire, and Norfolk. I find that in these counties there are respectively the following number of charities applicable to more than one parish—namely,

	No. of	Confined to
	Charities.	2 psh	3 psh	4 psh	5 psh
Devon	34	21	10	2	1
Cheshire	34	23	9	1	—*
Norfolk	25	20	3	1	1
*In Cheshire one charity extends into six parishes.

We propose that parochial charities shall be defined to be charities, the benefits of which are confined to a single parish or a single ancient ecclesiastical parish or to two or more (but not above five) neighbouring parishes. This will cover the case of a great many charities in the North of England. I think it would be dangerous to extend it beyond the number five, as that would bring in charities not intended to be parochial. The definition is, I think, a moderate and fair one.

Amendment proposed, In page 33, after line 13, to insert the words,—"The expression 'parochial charity' means a charity the benefits of which are confined to inhabitants of a single parish, or of a single ancient ecclesiastical parish divided into two or more parishes, or of not more than five neighbouring parishes."—(Mr. H. H. Fower.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he did not rise to oppose the Amendment, but he wished to put three questions: Was it sufficiently clear that the words "single parish" in the second line were as satisfactory as "single ecclesiastical parish"? Had the Government considered the sub-division of ancient ecclesiastical parishes under old Acts of Parliament? and, finally, was there not some Return which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to tell them whether there was any large number of charities extending over more than five parishes? He was not disposed to say the compromise of five parishes was not a reasonable one, but it would be satisfactory to them to have an assurance that the number of charities running into more than five parishes did not exceed 30 or 40 in the whole country.

* MR. EGERTON ALLEN&c.) (Pembroke,

said, he knew of charities which had one body of trustees for the corpus of the charity, but the proceeds of the charity were separately distributed in various parishes by local managers, and he feared that the definition of "parochial charity" might not cover such cases. In the case of Dr. Jones's Charity in Pembrokeshire there was one body of trustees, but the proceeds of the charity were given to four parishes. In three of those parishes the recipients were chosen by the Clergyman and Churchwardens, while in the fourth they were selected by members of the Cathedral Body.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! This is a Definition Clause, and the hon. Member is not entitled to go into the question of the distribution of charities.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

said, that if his Amendment were accepted the case he had mentioned would undoubtedly come within the definition, otherwise he feared it would not.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 2, after the word "are," to insert the words "or the separate administration of which is."—(Mr. Egerton Allen.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the case mentioned by the hon. Member fell entirely within the definition. The hon. Gentleman had mentioned the case of trustees whose duty it was, with the assistance of local trustees in different parishes, to distribute the funds. It appeared to him that "administration" included "distribution," and that the case came, therefore, within the definition. In reply to the hon, and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, the question raised by him as to whether the description should be "single ecclesiastical parish" had been carefully considered by the Government, and they held that the case of charities in parishes in the North of England, which had been sub-divided, was fully covered by the phrase "single ancient ecclesiastical parish." The Government had not had time to get an exhaustive Return of the charities which extended to more than five parishes; but the Charity Commissioners had taken representative counties, and found that in those counties from 1 to 2 per cent, of all the parochial charities were for more than one parish, and the charities that concerned a large number of parishes were very few indeed. The figure 5 had been adopted by the Government as covering by far the larger number of cases—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That is not the question before the Committee.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

asked what would be the effect of this definition in the case of the parochial charities mentioned in a former sub-section, which were confined solely to the inhabitants of one parish? There was nothing in the definition extending it to that class of charities.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the Government were defining parochial charities, and in the beginning of their definition they put in these words—"unless the context otherwise requires." That being the case, the natural meaning of the words to which the right hon. Baronet had referred was that the benefits of the paiticular parochial charity belonged to the inhabitants of the particular parish. The right hon. Baronet's mind might be at case as to the effect of the definition in the ease referred to.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

said that, on the assurance of the Solicitor General that the ease he referred to came within the definition, he was quite ready to withdraw 1ds Amendment. But he would like to ask if the word "neighbouring" was to be construed as meaning parishes within the same county, or merely as adjoining parishes?

SIR J. RIGBY

was understood to agree it would include parishes in the same county.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

Then, under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he failed to understand the principle on which the Government had dealt with this matter, and he was led to the conclusion that they thought by fixing upon five parishes they could draw into their net all local charities of every description. He thought they had adopted a most unsatisfactory way of defining local charities. No doubt they all agreed with the first part of the definition that where parishes—however many they might be—originally formed one parish, and possessed any charities common to the whole group, they should be dealt with as parochial charities, but when they came to neighbouring parishes which had always existed independently it did seem inadvisable to draw the line at five, or anything of the kind. When they were discussing Clause 13 he instanced the case of a purely educational charity, the benefits of which were extended to several parishes, and he was told at once that that was not what the Government meant by a parochial charity. The extension of the provision to cases where a charity's benefits were distributed in live parishes had removed a great deal of the objection he entertained, and he would only now suggest that in the case of urban districts and boroughs the limit of five might not quite meet the needs.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is an Amendment later on with regard to the number live.

MR. HOBHOUSE

said, he was endeavouring to show why he objected to the limit in the concluding part of the definition. But ho would ask, was he right in thinking that, in rural parishes the only effect of the extension would be that the persons appointed by the Parish Council would replace the Overseers in the case of charities that extended into two or more parishes? Otherwise Clause 18 would not extend to such charities. If that assurance was given him he would not move his Amendment.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

said, he wished to amend the hon. Member's Amendment by inserting the words—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Does the hon. Member propose to move the substitution of "six" for "five?"

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

No, Sir; I have handed in at the Table the terms of my proposed Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not in Order.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

Do I understand you to rule, Sir, that my Amendment is not in Order.

* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for Somerset did not move, and the hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment to an Amendment which has not been moved. I call upon the hon. Gentleman to move his own Amendment.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

said, he regretted the error into which he had fallen. He begged to move to omit the word "neighbouring" in the last line of the Amendment of the President of the Local Government Board. The meaning of the word was not clear to him, and he was afraid it would operate to exclude from the Bill some charities in which he was interested. There were, for instance, four parishes which enjoyed the benefit of one of these charities, differently distributed in each by different Boards of Management. Two were adjoining parishes; the third was about eight miles from those two, and the fourth was 25 miles from any of the other three. Would it be said that "neighbouring" included parishes 25 miles apart from one another? He submitted that unless the word "neighbouring" was intended to cover such ca retention was unnecessary.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, to leave out the word "neighbouring."—(Mr. Egerton Allen.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'neighbouring' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he hoped the Government would not accept the Amendment, which was a very considerable extension of the moaning of "parochial charity," but would adhere to the words which they had placed upon the Paper. The Amendment applied not only to charities in rural parishes, but to charities in towns. If the Government accepted the Amendment they would interfere with a great many charities in largo towns, which had no idea that they would ho interfered with by this Bill.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Government had put in the word "neighbouring" because they did not want the Act, to apply to charities divided between parishes, one of which was situated in the north and the other in the south, and practically managing their own affairs without any concert with each other. Neighbouring parishes meant parishes within such a distance of each other that, they could join in the administration of a charity. The Government were sure that the word would cover the vast majority of cases of divided charities, and they could not extend the scope of the definition unless with the entire concurrence of the Committee.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he was rather in the dark with regard to this matter. He was at a loss to see what the definition was wanted for, and he would like to know under what section of the Bill it was necessary to add these words?

SIR J. RIGBY

said, he bad been pressed in season and out of season to give a definition of "parochial charity." The Government gave in a certain section their meaning of the term, and they now proposed this definition with regard to area which they had promised again and again.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

moved to add at the end of the proposed Amendment— Provided that, in the case of municipal boroughs, every charity, the administration of which is con lined to the limits of a borough, shall, for the purpose of Section 29, be included in the term parochial. He said, that as a borough could not he held to be in the ordinary sense a parish, unless there was some provision in the Bill that borough charities were to be dealt with by the Bill, as being included within the term "parochial charity," he could not understand how Section 29 could he worked.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 4, at the end, to insert the words,—"Provided that, in the case of municipal boroughs, every charity, the administration of which is confined to the limits of a borough, shall, for the purpose of Section 29, be included in the term parochial.—(Mr. Egerton Allen.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he hoped his hon. Friend would not press the Amendment, because, irrespective of the fact, that Clause 29 was the proper clause on which to raise the question, the Amendment was too wide. Perhaps his hon. Friend would put down some words to Clause 29 on Report which the Government could consider.

SIR C. W. DILKE

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would himself put down words to meet the not infrequent case in which a charity belonged to a small borough.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he trusted that the President of the Local Government Board would not attempt to meet the suggestions from below the Gangway on his own side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman did so, he, as a borough Member, would resist the proposal by every means in his power.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said, that he must also (inter a protest against any proposal for interfering with the trustees of borough charities. Those trustees had got no notice of any such proposal, which would create a revolution whore public opinion was perfectly satisfied with the existing state of affairs.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, That the words 'the expression 'parochial charity' means a charity the benefits of which are con lined to inhabitants of a single parish, or of a single ancient ecclesiastical parish divided into two or more parishes, or of not more than live neighbouring parishes" be added to the Clause, put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 33,line 15,after the word "parish," to insert the word "whether. In page 33, line 15, after the word "assembled," to insert the words "or not. In page 33, after line 19, to insert the words, "the expression 'elementary school' means an elementary school within the meaning of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870.' In page 33, after line 10, to insert the words, "the expression 'local and personal Act' includes a Provisional Order confirmed by an Act and the Act confirming the Order.

MR. W. ALLEN

moved an Amendment for the purpose of defining "permanent pasture." He stated that there were many local differences of opinion as to what constituted permanent pasture, find it seemed very desirable, therefore, that the matter should be defined in the Bill. In Gloucestershire land was not considered permanent pasture if it had been broken up in the memory of man. In Staffordshire land was permanent pasture if it had been laid down in grass seed for 10 or 12 years; and in other counties land would be considered permanent pasture, for the purposes of the Act, if it were in good heart, thoroughly clean, and sown with grass seeds. Therefore, if according to one theory land was to be considered as permanent pasture as soon as grass seed was actually sown, he feared it would be possible to evade that part of the Act which related to allotments. All a landlord would have to do in order to prevent the Parish Council from taking a field for allotments was to lay down that field in grass. He therefore moved to insert that the expression "permanent pasture" should moan land sown in permanent grass seed and used as pasture for a period of not less than 10 years.

Amendment proposed, To add, at end of Clause, the words,—"The expression 'permanent pasture' means land sown in permanent grass seed, and used as pasture for a period of not less than 10 years." —(Mr. W. Allen.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the very fad that there were differences of view in different parts of the country as to what constituted permanent pasture made definition a very difficult matter. The question was one of fact in each case. He did not profess any special knowledge of agricultural affairs, but he had had to do with the laying down of permanent pasture, and he knew that the mere sowing of grass seed did not constitute permanent pasture. A very short experience would show any practical agriculturist whether a given field was permanent pasture or not—that was to say, whether it had acquired such a character that it could reasonably be called permanent pasture.

MR. W. ALLEN

said, that as he had the assurance of the Solicitor General that land could not be considered permanent pasture as soon as it was sown with grass seeds, he bogged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Schedules 1 and 2 negatived.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved the following Schedule:—

First Schedule.

Rules as to Parish Meetings, Parish Councils, and Committees.

Part One.

Rules applicable to Parish Meetings.

1. (1) Not less than seven clear days before any parish meeting, public notice thereof shall be given specifying the time and place of the intended meeting and the business to be transacted at the meeting, and signed by the chairman of the Parish Council or other conveners of I he meeting.
2. (2) If the business relates to the establishment or dissolution of a Parish Council, or the grouping of a parish, or the adoption of any of the adoptive Acts, not less than 14 days' notice shall he given.
3. (3) A parish meeting may discuss parish affairs and pass resolutions thereon.
1235
4. (4) Every question to be decided by a parish meeting shall, in the first instance, be decided by the majority of those present and voting on the question, and the chairman shall announce his decision as to the result, and that, decision shall be final, unless a poll is demanded.
5. (5) A poll may be demanded at any time before the conclusion of a parish meeting.
6. (6) A poll may be demanded by any one parochial elector in the ease of a resolution respecting any of the following matters, namely:—
   1. (a) Any application, representation, or complaint to a County Council or District Council;
   2. (b) The appointment of a chairman for the year or of a committee, or the delegation of any powers or duties to a committee, or the approval of the acts of a committee;
   3. (c) The appointment of an Overseer, the appointment, or revocation of the appointment, or dismissal of an Assistant Overseer or a parish officer;
   4. (d) The appointment of trustees or beneficiaries of a, charity;
   5. (e) The adoption of any of the adoptive Acts;
   6. (f) The consent or refusal of consent, to any act, matter, or thing which cannot by law be done without that consent;
   7. (g) The incurring of any expense or liability;
   8. (h) The place and time for the assembly of the parish meeting or any adjournment thereof;
   9. (i) Any other prescribed matter;
   but. save as aforesaid, a poll shall not be taken unless either the chairman of the meeting assents, or the poll is demanded by parochial electors present at the meeting, not being less than five in number or one-third of those present, whichever number is least.
7. (7) In case of an equal division of votes at a parish meeting the chairman shall have a second or casting vote.
8. (8) Where a parish meeting is held for the election of Parish Councillors, opportunity shall be given at the meeting for putting questions to such of the candidates as are present, and receiving explanation from them, and any candidate shall be entitled to attend the meeting and speak thereat, but, unless he is a parochial elector, not to vote.
9. (9) If the chairman of the parish meeting is absent, from, or unwilling or unable to take the chair at any assembly of the parish meeting, the meeting may appoint a person to take the chair, and that person shall have, for the purpose of that meeting, the powers and authority of the chairman.

Part Two.

Rules applicable to Parish Councils.

1. (1) Every Parish Councillor shall, at the first meeting after his election, or if the Council at the first meeting so permit, then at a later meeting fixed by the Council, sign, in the presence of some member of the Council, a declaration 1236 that he accepts the office, and if he does not sign such a declaration his office shall be void.
2. (2) If any casual vacancy arises in the Council, the Council shall forthwith be convened for filling the vacancy. A Councillor elected to fill the vacancy shall retire at the time at which the vacating Councillor would have retired.
3. (3) The first business at the annual meeting shall be to elect a chairman, and to appoint the Overseers.
4. (4) The chairman may at any time convene a meeting of the Parish Council. If the chairman refuses to convene a meeting of the Council after a requisition for that purpose-signed by two members of the Council has been presented to him, any two members of the Council may forthwith, on that refusal, convene a meeting. If the chairman (without so refusing) does not within seven days after such presentation convene a meeting, any two members of the Council may, on the expiration of those seven days, convene a meeting.
5. (5) Three clear days at least before any meeting of a Parish Council, notice thereof, specifying the time and place of the intended meeting, and the business to be transacted at t he meeting, and signed by or on behalf of the chairman of the Parish Council, or persons convening the meeting, shall be given to every member of the Parish Council, and in case of the annual meeting, notice specifying the like particulars shall be given to every member of the Parish Council immediately after his election.
6. (6) Any notice required by law to be given to the chairman or any other member of the Parish Council may be left at or sent by post to the usual place of abode of such chairman or member.
7. (7) No business shall be transacted at any meeting of a Parish Council, unless at least one-third of the full number of members are present thereat, subject to this qualification, that, in no case shall the quorum be less than two.
8. (8) The names of the members present, at any meeting of the Parish Council, as well as of those voting on each question on which a division is taken, shall be recorded, so as to show whether each vote given was for or against the question.
9. (9) Every question tit a meeting of a Parish Council shall be decided by a majority of votes of the members present and voting on that question.
10. (10) In ease of an equal division of votes the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.
11. (11) The Parish Council may, if they think tit, appoint one of their number to be vice chairman, and the vice chairman shall, in the absence or during the inability of the chairman have the powers and authority of the chairman.
12. (12) The proceedings of a Parish Council shall not be invalidated by any vacancy among their members, or by any defect in the election or qualification of any member thereof.
1237
13. (13) A Parish Council shall hold not less than four meetings in each year, of which one shall be the annual meeting.
14. (14) Every cheque or other order for payment of money by a Parish Council shall be signed by two members of the Council.
15. (15) Any notice required to he given to or served on a Parish Council may be given to or served on the clerk of the Parish Council.
16. (16) The Parish Council may appear before any Court or in any loyal proceeding by their clerk or by any officer or member authorised generally or in respect of any special proceeding by resolution of the Council, and their clerk or any member or officer shall, if so authorised, be at liberty to institute and carry on any proceeding which the Parish Council are authorised to institute and carry on.

Part Three.

General.

1. (1) Minutes of the proceedings of every Parish Council and parish meeting shall be kept in a book provided for that purpose.
2. (2) A minute of proceedings at a meeting of a Parish Council, or of a committee of a Parish or District Council, or at a parish meeting, signed at the same or the next ensuing meeting by a person describing himself as or appearing to be chairman of the meeting at which the minute is signed, shall be received in evidence without further proof.
3. (3) Until the contrary is proved, every meeting in respect of the proceedings whereof a minute has been so made shall be deemed In have been duly convened and held, and all the members of the meeting shall be deemed to have been duly qualified; and where the proceedings are proceedings of a committee, the committee shall he deemed to have been duly constituted, and to have had power to deal with the matters referred to in the minutes.
4. (4) Any instrument purporting to be executed under the hands or under the hands and seals of the chairman and two other members of a Parish Council or of a parish meeting shall, until I he contrary is proved, be deemed to have been duly so executed.
5. (5) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Parish Council may make, vary, and revoke standing orders for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and of the proceedings and business at parish meetings for a rural parish having a Parish Council.
6. (6) Where there is no Council for a rural parish, the parish meeting may, subject to the provisions of this Act, regulate their own proceedings and business.

Part Four.

Proceedings of Committees of Parish or District Councils.

1. (1) The quorum, proceedings, and place of meeting of a committee, whether within or without the parish or district, and the area (if any) within which the committee are to excretes their authority, shall be such as may be determined by regulations of the Council or Councils appointing the committee.
2. (2) Subject to such regulations, the quorum, proceedings, and place of meeting, whether I 1238 within or without the parish or district, shall he such as the committee direct, and the chairman at any meeting of the committee shall have a second or easting vote.

Schedule read a second time.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved to insert at the beginning of the Schedule this new Rule:— (1) The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be held on the 25th day of March in each year, or on such other day between the 19th and' 21st of March (both inclusive) as the parish meeting may fix. He said, it was important to have a date fixed which was well known to every one in a, locality, and which would he likely to bring all the persons interested together.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Schedule— Part 1, Rule 1, at beginning, to insert the words,—"(1) The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be held on the 25th day of March in each year, or on such other day between the 19th and 31st of March (both inclusive) as the parish meeting may fix."—(Mr. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it would he undesirable to fix a date, because Clause 18 had already provided that the annual assembly of a parish meeting should he held cither in the mouth of March or April. This provision gave more elasticity to the authorities than the Amendment of the hon. Member. He was willing to insert, in the Schedule the words— The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be held either in March or April.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Schedule— At beginning, to insert the words,—"The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall be hold cither in March or April."—(Mr. H. H. Fewler.)

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

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved to leave out the word "beneficiaries," from Subsection (7) (d) of the Schedule. The Schedule proposed to give power to any parochial elector tit a parish meeting to demand a poll on a resolution respecting the beneficiaries of a charity, which certainly was a, very democratic mode for the distribution of charity, but ought to be removed.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Schedule— In Part 1, Sub-section (7) (d) to leave out the words "or beneficiaries."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'beneficiaries' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Parish Council or the parish meeting had no power to appoint beneficiaries. Except where the Vestry now possessed this power, and in the case of a Vestry meeting, a single ratepayer can demand a poll.

Question put, and agreed to.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

pointed out that Sub-section (h) ran— The place and time for the assembly of the parish meeting or any adjournment thereof. He asked, how could there be a poll with regard to the adjournment of a meeting?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He moved the omission of the words "or any adjournment thereof."

Question, "That the words 'or any adjournment thereof,' stand part of the Schedule," put, and negatived.

MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

moved— In Part 2, Rule (7), line 3, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three. The Rule dealt with the question of a quorum. If there was a, quorum of two only, the result would be that the chairman could practically do what he liked, as he would have a casting vote. The quorum for the smallest School Board could not be less than three, and this was a precedent for three for a Parish Council.

Amendment proposed to the proposed New Schedule— In Part 2, Rule (7), line 3, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "three."— (Mr. Strachey.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'two' stand part of the Schedule."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the number of two was fixed for the convenience of the Parish Councils. No great question of principle was involved in the matter.

MR. STRACHEY

said, he thought there should be two besides the chairman in case of a division.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, he desired lo move an Amendment, in order to provide that the meetings should he open to the public, unless the Council should otherwise determine. Ho found that some Public Bodies kept their doors closed to the public and the Press, and he desired to place the Councils under this Bill in the same position as the House of Commons—that was to say, that the business should be transacted with open doors unless, as also in the case of that House, they, by a majority of their members, closed the doors against strangers. He trusted that the Government would not object to the proposal, and as they knew perfectly well that the great evil in all Public Bodies was the want of publicity, he thought it would require very little argument to recommend it to the Committee. The very fact that the public knew what was going on in these Public Bodies prevented many errors from being committed, to say the least of it. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, Schedule 1, page 39, line 37, at end, to insert the words "and such meetings are to be open lo the public unless the Council shall otherwise determine."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, this was what the Government intended: that the meetings should be open to the public. The hon. Member proposed that these Parish Councils should be in the same position as other Public Bodies, but he did not think the Amendment was at all necessary for that purpose.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, if the right hon. Gentleman agreed with him he ought to have no difficulty in accepting the Amendment. It was a fact which must be known to the right hon. Gentleman that it was a common practice of some of these bodies, even in London, to dose their doors against the public, and all he asked was that they should be compelled lo take a vote before they did so. His light hon. Friend said that was what he desired, and, if so, he would make it perfectly clear by accepting these words. At any rate, ho felt so strongly upon it that, though be did not wish to detain the Committee, he must persist in his Amendment, as he believed publicity was necessary to keep these bodies straight.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. He could not accept the Amendment offhand, but he would consider the matter, and see what could he done.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he was quite satisfied with that statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedule 2 (Enactments Repealed) read a second time.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he had an Amendment to this Schedule, and he had put it down for the purpose of drawing attention once more to a very important part of the Bill. His Amendment proposed to omit from the Schedule the Union Assessment Act, 1862, which regulated the appointment of the Assessment Committee. When the Assessment Committees were formed under the Act it was specified that a certain number of the members should be ex officio Guardians, and when it was remembered that these committees had to deal with many very delicate matters, including semi-judicial functions, it would be seen how desirable it was that these duties should not he left to the haphazard decision of the ordinary Guardians, but that there should be some one able to assist them in their deliberations. Only last week he sat as Chairman of Quarter Sessions trying an appeal from a Union by the London County Council, and it would he obvious that such an appeal was an important matter; eminent counsel were engaged on both sides, and large issues were involved. Under the Act a proportion of the Assessment Committees were ex officio Guardians, and he had no doubt the decisions of these committees would take sonic considerable responsibility to upset, but if they were going to have the Assessment Committees constituted without any guarantee there would be anything in the nature of a judicial element upon them, the result would he there would be a great many more appeals than at present and much greater expense to the ratepayers. He need hardly remind the Government that the appeal to which he hail referred involved very large expendi- ture of public money. These learned counsel did not argue the case for nothing, and the result was that the ratepayers of London and Kent had a deal of money to pay, though as it happened each side paid their own costs. He instanced this to show that there were matters of importance as well as matters of delicacy, which perhaps the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten when he removed the ex officio element, which was a semi-judicial element, from Boards of Guardians. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] In that case he thought the right hon. Gentleman had treated the matter very lightly. When he appealed to him before the right hon. Gentleman said the places of the ex officio Guardians would be taken by the elected Guardians, and seemed to think it was an idle provision not worthy of consideration. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he did not consider this was a matter well worthy of attention? If the ex officio element was to be removed some provision should be taken that the Assessment Committee should be constituted in such a manner as to command the confidence of the public. He ventured to think that a great deal of confusion and expense would result from the multiplicity of appeals in the future. Though he knew that he had no hope of succeeding in his Amendment, he wished to show that the responsibility of it must rest on the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, and he was afraid they would be very much disappointed in the result. But he had made his protest, and upon the Government must rest the responsibility.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from "25 & 26 Vic, c. 103," in column I. to "case may be," in column 1.— (Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

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

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

said, he must support the appeal of his hon. Friend, because he felt this to be a most serious matter. The Assessment Committee had very difficult and delicate duties to perform, and the members had been chosen with care. The proposed change would enormously multiply the appeals from the Assessment Committees and greatly increase expense.

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

said, that no doubt the work done by the Assessment Committees was work of great delicacy, but he was bound to say that his experience had been different from that of the hon. Gentleman who had addressed the Committee on this question. He knew there were many Members in the House who, as ex officio members, had done very valuable work on Assessment and Valuation Committees, but he could assure the Committee that the same kind of work was equally well done by those who wore not ex officio Guardians. He could quote the case of a Board of Guardians in London on which there wore a number of ex officio members, and while they attended the Board of Guardians meetings regularly, it was extremely difficult to got one of them to attend the meeting of the Assessment and Valuation Committees. Though they had to put on one-third of ex officio Guardians as against two-thirds of elected Guardians, the ex officio Guardians never attended, and a quorum had to be made and the business of the Committee transacted by the elected Guardians. This was rather a remarkable case, because there had not been any successful appeals from the decision of this committee. The whole of this work was done by the chairman, vice chairman, and members of the committee, none of whom were ex officio members.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he was sorry the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Talbot) thought they had not given due consideration to the question, and he thought the hon. Member had misunderstood his meaning. The answer he made to the hon. Gentleman was meant to convey that in asking the Committee to abolish the ex officio Guardians they could not keep this element alive for one purpose while removing it for all other purposes. This was not the only case—he spoke from memory—but he thought the School Attendance Committee required a certain proportion of ex officio members, he agreed with the hon. Member that the Magistrates had rendered as great services on the Assessment Committee as they had upon the Boards of Guardians, and he had never attempted to minimise that, but they were undertaking a change which would be for the better or worse, as hon. Members might think, and they considered the elective element would produce a sufficient number of men who were quite competent to discharge the duties of the Assessment Committee, he intimated early in the Debate on this matter that he was not satisfied with their present mode of assessment; he thought the whole question of assessment wanted overhauling, and that a new plan should be introduced, but, at any rate, the hon. Gentleman who raised this question had made his protest, and he must admit that the hon. Gentleman had made a good light for the ex officio Guardians. The hon. Gentleman himself had been a very efficient ex officio Guardian in London, and ho had fought their case well. Having done so, and made his protest, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied; that he would withdraw the Amendment, and allow him to move that the Chairman report the Bill with Amendments to the House.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 480.]