CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 11 January 1894 vol 20 cc1349-427

As amended, considered.

MR. TRITTON (Lambeth, Norwood)

moved the following clause:— No meeting of a Parish Council or of a District Council shall be held in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor except in cases where no other suitable room is available. He wished to point out most emphatically that the clause inflicted no hardship and no injustice on anyone; it took away no existing trade or custom whatever from any licensed premises, and therefore was in no way hurtful to any class of the community. He had found out in the last few days that very considerable interest existed on this subject, and there seemed to be a general consensus of opinion outside that House that the insertion of this clause, or some clause like it, was most desirable. It was illegal to hold election meetings on licensed premises, and it would be illegal to hold election meetings for Parish Councillors on such premises, and, therefore, he failed to see why it should not also be illegal for Parish Councils, when formed, to hold their meetings in public- houses. Many reasons in support of the clause might be advanced; but one only would he mention, as it seemed to have escaped notice. They were now proposing to allow women to take an active part in parish government, and he was one of those who heartily approved of the new departure; but many women, if elected on Parish Councils, would shrink from attending meetings in public-houses. When lie brought this subject forward the other evening the President of the Local Government Board said he had great sympathy with the object of the proposed clause, but that it was impossible to accept it at present, as there were a considerable number of parishes in the country where there was no room available except in the public-house. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been in the House now—he, noticed that the right hon. Gentleman had just left— he would certainly have made a strong appeal to him for support of this clause, because the right hon. Gentleman was one of the most distinguished and the most recent converts to temperance reform, lie knew that the right hon. Gentleman had been the hero of Hyde Park demonstrations and the Covent Garden Convention, and he was generally regarded as the idol of temperance reformers. He therefore felt that if the right hon. Gentleman had been present he would have used his influence with the President of the Local Government Board—as hon. Members had known him use his influence before during the conduct of this Bill—in the direction of the acceptance of this clause. But he would now appeal to the President of the Local Government Board himself, who was present. The right hon. Gentleman could not accept his proposal the other night, although he had sympathised with it, and they had a most interesting and instructive Division on the subject in a somewhat small House. He was quite ready to take a Division on the subject again this afternoon. He might be beaten, but, if so, he would be beaten in a good cause; and at any rate, he would have been allowed to make his protest on this subject. He appealed most earnestly to the President of the Local Government Board, whose name would always be honourably associated with this Bill, to insert a clause which was conceived in no narrow Party spirit, but in the best interests of the community at large. If the right hon. Gentleman would add it to the Bill he believed it would prove to be most useful, and would tend greatly to the success of the measure in every village throughout the land.

Clause (Place of meeting of Parish or District Council or Board of Guardians,)—(Mr. Tritton,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

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

The hon. Member has stated quite correctly that I sympathised the other night very strongly—as I sympathise now—with the object of this clause, and I can assure the hon. Member that he indulged in a pleasant satire which was quite unnecessary on a subject of this description, concerning either my colleagues or myself. It has been my desire to have this clause added to the Bill; but when it was moved the other night I was obliged to oppose it, because it gave no alternative; and as there are a large number of parishes where it would be impossible to hold a meeting under those circumstances, I then felt myself unable to accept the clause. But the hon. Member has put it in an altered form now, and I am bound to say that the alteration has practically removed the objection I previously felt to it, subject to some further alterations, which—if the hon. Member will accept—will enable me to vote for the second reading of the clause. The clause, as I propose to alter it, will read as follows:— No meeting of a Parish Council, or of a District Council, or of a Board of Guardians, shall be held in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor except in cases where no other suitable room is available. But if the words stopped there they might lead to a considerable amount of discussion and difficulty, and there might be some oppression on the parish meeting in the way of paying an excessive rent by their being driven to the only place where a meeting could be held. Therefore, I propose to add, after the word "available," the words— For such meeting, either free of charge or at a reasonable cost. If the hon. Member will accept that modification I am prepared to accept the second reading of the clause.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he thoroughly supported the Amendment, but he was not quite sure what powers were given under the Bill to pay for rooms under such circumstances, supposing they were required. He raised this question the other day with regard to his own Board of Guardians at Ashbourne, who had hired a room, and he doubted whether they had the power of putting the cost of it on the rates. He did not believe the power existed for a Parish Council or District Council to charge the cost of the room upon the rates. He thought they ought to have a clear statement on the subject before the clause was adopted.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My impression is that the Ashbourne Board of Guardians are not justified in doing what they at present are doing. I have that case in my eye. But there is clearly power given in the Bill to the Parish Council to provide a room. In Clause 4 we have already given the parochial electors power to use, at suitable times, the various schools, provided a suitable parish-room cannot be obtained free of charge.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had considered what the effect of the words he proposed to add would be? Who was to be the judge of what "reasonable cost" meant? Considerable difficulty would arise unless that point were cleared up. It would be better to indicate the body, say the County Council, which was to judge whether the cost was reasonable.

MR. CAINE (Bradford, E.)

thought it would be better if his right hon. Friend would omit the words— Except in cases where no other suitable room is available, and let the clause end at "intoxicating liquor." Otherwise the clause would undoubtedly cause confusion and doubt. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol characterised this proposal as ridiculous the other night, but he would ask leave to read a short letter he had received from the clergyman of a parish in Lincolnshire. The rev. gentleman wrote— After reading report of Friday's Debate I cannot forbear sending a line in proof that your proposal that no Council meeting should be held on intoxicating premises did not deserve to be stigmatised by Sir M. Hicks-Beach as ridiculous. If you could have quoted my experiences you would have snuffed him out. In my present parish and in my late parish I found the custom of adjourning Vestry meetings at once to the public-house for the transaction of all business. In the one case it was customary to spend —1 on beer with parish money. In neither case was there the excuse that no other room was available. In both cases I abolished the custom. Here we adjourn now to the school. The publican has never attended church since. No one but the clergyman has ever, with my knowledge, tried to carry out any such change, and in the future the clergyman will probably be conspicuous by his absence at all parish meetings. That showed that there wore cases in which it was most important that this clause should be passed, and, without criticising it, he would be glad it' his right hon. Friend could see his way to omit the words— Except in cases where no other suitable room is available.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I wish to say, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, that the Parish Council, the District Council, and the Board of Guardians will be the judge as to the reasouable cost of the room.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments in the proposed New Clause were agreed to:— In line 1, after "Council," to insert the words "or of a Board of Guardians. To add, at the end, after "available," the words "for such meeting either free of charge, or at a reasonable cost.

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

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

moved the following clause:— Where an Order of the Local Government Board under this Act confers on the Councils of an urban district or some other Representative body within the district either the Appointment of Overseers and Assistant Overseers or the powers, duties, and liabilities of Overseers, that Order or any subsequent Order of the Board may confer on such Council or body the powers of the Vestry under the third and fourth sections of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act. 1869. Ashe was informed that the Government intended to accept this clause he would not say much in moving it. The object of the clause was to transfer to the new bodies the last of the non-ecclesiastical powers of the old bodies, which the Bill as it stood failed to transfer.

Clause (Supplemental provisions as to control of Overseers in urban districts,)—(Sir C. W. Dilke,)—brought up, and read the first and second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following clause:— The Chairman of a Parish Council, unless a woman or personally disqualified by any act, shall be by virtue of his office Justice of the Peace for the county in which the parish is situate, but before acting as such Justice he shall, if he has not already done so, take the oaths required by law to be taken by a Justice of the Peace other than the oath respecting the qualification by estate. The question of the County Magistrates was, he said, a burning one in every county, and, though the present Lord Chancellor had tried to make some improvement, he was heavily handicapped by the property qualification required. There was now an opportunity of remedying to some extent the injustice that at present existed. lie thanked the Government for having made the Chairmen of District Councils Magistrates; he was sorry they had not added a provision making the Chairmen of Boards of Guardians Magistrates also; but he did not think the case would be met until the Chairmen of the Parish Councils were made Magistrates by virtue of their office; because then they would have by indirect election—he preferred direct election—every parish represented on the Bench of Magistrates, and the people would have the chance of having justice properly administered. They wanted the laws properly administered. That was not the case, he regretted to say, in the counties at present, Justice delayed was Justice denied, and he was anxious that the House should take stops to have laws properly and fairly administered. At the present moment the County Magistrates were mainly of that class who preserved game, and, consequently, they sat in judgment upon their own cases, and when they were not the actual prosecutors, they sat either upon the Pencil or very close to it. He could give an illustration. He remem- bered a very glaring case, which was brought before the Government in this House, in which certain Northumberland Magistrates had the trial of the case of the sort before them. A Captain Atkinson prosecuted a servant of a fanner for poaching, whereas it was shown he was only doing that which his master bade him do. The defendant in the case was, of course, convicted, although, as he (Mr. Morton) had said, he was only obeying the orders of his master! It was notorious that ground game destroyed the property of farmers, and they should not have penalties imposed when they were trying to save their property. Had the Bench been properly composed, he ventured to say this conviction would not have taken place, and the man would not have been convicted against the weight of evidence. All he wanted was that the Magistrates of the counties should represent all classes of the people. That was especially required in the matter of game preservation cases. He did not see why the Chairman of Parish Councils should not be on the same footing as the Mayors of boroughs. They were likely to be just as capable as representatives of the people, and he thought they would administer the law just as fairly as the Mayors of boroughs. By making the Chairmen of the Parish Council Magistrates they would add to the dignity of their office, and would induce many, who otherwise might not trouble, to take a part in the parish affairs. As far as he (Mr. Morton) was concerned, he was prepared to trust the people of the country even in an indirect way. The system would be, at least, much better than that which prevailed at present. He might be told that if they adopted this system it would lead to an undue addition to the number of Magistrates, but that difficulty could be met by removing from the Bench a large number of the present Justices. [A laugh.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) laughed; but he knew that the majority of the Magistrates now on the Bench never attended except when called upon at special times for special purposes—

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

Order, order! The question of the attendance of the present existing Magistrates has nothing to do with the object of the clause the hon. Member is moving.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not wish to pursue the matter he was alluding to. He merely wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who laughed at his suggestion that the majority of the present Bench were only interested in attending on special occasions. He would not detain the House any longer; but he trusted, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board could not accept his proposal, he would, at least, agree to a compromise whereby the Chairman of the Board of Guardians would be added to the Bench. His object was merely to secure an impartial administration of justice. He begged to move the clause.

Clause (Chairman of Parish Council to be a Justice,)—(Mr. A. C. Morton,)— brought up, and read the first time.

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, this question was discussed on the Committee stage, and, on the part of the Government, he then stated that the proposal was one which they could not accept. Nothing had since occurred to induce them to come to any other decision. The Government proposed that the chairmen of Urban Councils and of Rural District Councils should be ex officio Justices of the Peace, and that was a very large step in advance as far as Mayors were concerned. There were already 11,000 County and Borough Magistrates, and it could not be expected that they should increase that number by 10,000, which would be the effect of the present proposal. Having stated his reasons so fully on the previous occasion, he did not want now to occupy the time of the House The supporters of the proposal did not go to a Division before, and he supposed the question was not, therefore, of a character that required discussion in detail.

MR. HANBURY

said, he was not in favour of the proposed clause; but he hoped that, in the Definition Clause, the right hon. Gentleman would remove the injustice which the Bill did to the Mayors of large towns. The Mayors of small places would become Justices of the Peace for the county, but the Mayors of towns like Wolverhampton and Preston would not receive that distinction, which, as he understood, they would much appreciate. Such a change would not make any considerable addition to the Magistrates. Ho hoped, therefore, that the point would be considered.

MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, he would like to know the attitude of the President of the Local Government Board in regard to the chairmen of Boards of Guardians—

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

That is outside the question to be decided now.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

moved, after Clause 51, to insert the following Clause:— A County Council may employ a District Council as their agents in the transaction of any administrative business. This was practically the same clause that he had moved in Committee, and he understood the Government were willing to accept it in its present form, He thought the clause, if adopted, would be of great convenience and service to the County Council in matters of administration.

Clause (County Council may act through DistrictCouncil,)—(Mr. H. Hobhouse,)—brought up, and read the first time.

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

Mr. H. H. Fowler was understood to assent.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

The next clauses standing on the Paper in the names of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester (Lord Cranborne), and the hon. Members for the Westbury Division of Wilts (Mr. Fuller), and Sunderland (Mr. Storey) are not in Order.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, on. a point of Order, he would ask whether the clause be had on the Paper was not in Order after the clause which had just been passed as to delegation of powers?

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

was understood to say that was not so. The clause now proposed would have the effect of enlarging the scope of the Bill so far that he did not think he would be justified in putting it.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out "resolves," and insert "resolve. Line 17, after "parish," insert "and. Line 22, after "meeting," insert "for that parish.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

I beg to move— In page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word "for," to end of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and insert the words "and one candidate only, but he may vote in the alternative for as many candidates as he pleases, by writing 1, 2, 3, and so on, opposite the names of those candidates in the order of his preference; and the results of such election shall be ascertained in the manner prescribed in the Third Schedule to this Act. The proposal, Sir, which I now bring before the House is similar to that which I brought before the House on the Committee stage of this Bill. I am quite as conscious of the duty of being brief in supporting any proposition that may be brought before the House at this stage; but I hope the House will allow me a few minutes in which to state the great importance of the matter which T desire to bring before it. This Bill really depends upon the composition of the various bodies to be created under its provisions. You propose to renovate parish life, and that cannot be carried into effect unless the Local Bodies are really representative of all classes in the parish. Only on that being done can you hope to make the Councils fulfil properly the functions for which they are being created. Hitherto the complaint has been that the parson, the squire, and the farmer were the masters of the situation. Well, Sir, I rejoice that the parson and the squire have been dethroned; but, Sir, I do not wish to see them exiled. I should be glad to see the squire and the farmer, the parson and the labourer, and the Dissenting minister sitting side by side. I do not wish that they should disappear, but that those who have so long been at the head of affairs should heartily cooperate with those called upon to work with them in the future, animated by one common feeling of anxiety to develop the wellbeing of the parish. Under the common form of election you only have the majority of electors securing representation, and if this is continued it must create distrust and dissatisfaction on the part of those who are excluded. I do hope that in these local institutions, when they are called into existence, we shall see as little as possible of any manifestation of Party feeling, and that all parties will work together to secure and fulfil the highest ambitions which the authors of the Bill have conceived; and that the people would be found animated by a common object in that direction. I therefore suggest that the Parish Councils should be elected by the process of the cumulative vote, the machinery of which is known and is already in existence in many parts of the country. Such a plan, being known—experience being had of it—is, I venture to think, free from all difficulty, and must secure the representation of all classes. I am ready to accept any suggestion that may be made. I have suggested a plan of action, which I believe to be far from a difficulty, and which will, if adopted by the House, bring about an absence of privilege and abolition of undue claims or power on the part of any particular class or set of persons. Briefly, the scheme is to give to each elector the power prescribed in this Amendment. That is to say, in the case where five members have to be elected no one will be entitled to vote for more than one. That is a very simple idea—one man, one vote for one candidate; equal power, equal representation. That is the essence of the scheme. It gives absolute equality in respect of the power of the Representative Body. I refer the House to the experience we have had of the cumulative vote. The Royal Commission on Primary Education recommend that, in case of any change being made, this principle should be adopted with regard to School Board elections. We have not done with this problem, and I hope it is not useless to consider it in connection with the Parochial Boards of the future. I dwell upon the principle rather than the machinery. It is an attempt to bring on these Boards representatives of all the parochial electors in exact correspondence with the division of feeling in the parishes. It is the principle which I wish to press upon the House. By its adoption you will bring together valuable experience and valu- able thought, and, for that reason, I most earnestly press the question on the consideration of the Government and the House. I am sure those who desire to see these Local Institutions working for the good of all classes—rich and poor— will be glad to bring into cordial cooperation all the characteristics of the country. For the reasons I have stated, I think I am justified in pressing my Amendment upon the Government, and urging the House to reconsider this question. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 14, to leave out from the word "for," to end of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and insert the words "one candidate only, but he may vote in the alternative for as many candidates as he pleases by writing the figures 1, 2, 3, and so on, opposite the names of those candidates in the order of his preference; and the results of such election shall be ascertained in the manner prescribed in the Third Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My right hon. Friend has certainly one of the virtues of the British character—he never knows when he is beaten. This question was discussed more than once at great length in Committee, and the Committee had decided against it. The Government then stated they could not accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I am not prepared to say it is not possible to work out the plan of my right hon. Friend. Those of us who were in the Parliament of 1880 will recollect that he took a, very strong line on this question when the Reform Bill was brought in, and that its non-acceptance was the most important among the reasons which led to his resigning the office which he filled with great ability and great advantage to the country. At all events, if I remember right, assisted by the right hon. Member for the University of London, he had a sort of amateur lecture downstairs, in order to make Members of the House understand the working of the plan, and although some of us were clever enough to understand it, yet a considerable number of the average Members of the House of Commons did not understand the plan, notwithstanding all the ability with which it was laid down by my right hon. Friend, and I am afraid if the average Member of the House of Commons was unable to understand it—

MR. COURTNEY

said, that was not the case.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I always understood that some of them, at any rate, proved inapt pupils, and were not able to grasp it. But, be that as it may, this would not be a simple plan for the parochial elector to grasp. It is perfectly novel in our electoral system; there is nothing like it anywhere else, and my right hon. Friend proposes to try this experiment on a new constituency and to impose upon them conditions of election which are not imposed upon any other electoral constituency. It is not adopted in the case of the election of Members of Parliament, and certainly the Government cannot undertake to give their concurrence to so great a change in our electoral system. We do not desire to exclude the clergyman or the squire from the administration of local affairs. Nor do I believe any such exclusion will take place. Wherever the clergy and the squire possess the confidence of their fellow inhabitants of the parish they will be chosen in preference to any other candidates. I should deplore that the Parish Council should be composed of one class of society. As I have said, we have no such plan as that proposed in our electoral system anywhere; it does not prevail here or in the Town Councils or in our Urban Boards, and now, when we are creating a new constituency, the Parish Council, and when we are also modifying the system of election of Poor Law Guardians, I believe the common sense and justice which have hitherto actuated our Electoral Bodies will not befound wanting in the election of members for the administration of parochial affairs. The Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated very fully their views on the question of proportional and minority representation on the Committee stage of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend, on a subsequent occasion, discussed it with much ability, but was unable to induce the House to accept his view, and I ask the House to adhere to the decision it has already recorded more than once on this question.

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

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has—I do not say in a very hostile spirit—criticised my right hon. Friend for bringing on this Amendment again on Report. But I think he will admit that this is a question which, if it be worth discussing at all, is a question of such importance as to be worth taking the opinion not merely of a Committee of the whole House, but the whole House itself upon. The objections of the right hon. Gentleman are of two kinds. He objects to the particular machinery for representing a minority, and to introducing in the Bill any machinery whatever for carrying out that object. With regard to the first point, his objection to this scheme is that it is of so obscure and complicated a character that we cannot expect the village communities we are enfranchising to understand or work it, and he has drawn from his historical reminiscences a picture of certain events which took place in connection with this House, the result of which was that a good many Members of this House declared themselves perfectly unable to understand the machinery of proportional representation. I have constantly noticed there are gentlemen in this House and out of it who think they can give no greater proof of their own worldly wisdom than by expressing their utter inability to understand any proposition which runs outside their ordinary course of everyday experience. Nothing on earth is easier than this plan. The elector has only got to express a preference for the various candidates in the order of that preference, and a more simple operation of saying he casts his votes first for Smith, next for Brown, and then for Jones, I cannot conceive. That is all the tax that is placed on the intelligence of the village voter, and if he is incapable of performing an operation as simple as that it suggests to me a doubt as to whether he is lit to carry on the work of local government at all. I pass from his objection to this particular form to his objections to the mode of minority representation as a whole. These, again, resolve themselves into the view that if you are to carry out minority representation at all you should begin with the House of Commons, go on to your Municipalities, and only after you had dealt with these large and important bodies should you extend the system to the small bodies called into existence by this measure. My own view is precisely the opposite, and I will give very shortly my reason for differing from the right hon. Gentleman. I, Sir, have been, on the whole, an advocate of minority representation for this House, but I confess with very grave misgivings as regards one point of the scheme. I have never been able to see how we can carry on in this House the government of the Empire at all except under a system of Party. That I believe to be an essential element in free government as applied to very largo communities, and I have to admit that the system of minority representation might possibly weaken the Party system to such a degree that no Government could be absolutely secure of that tenure of Office which is necessary for managing the affairs of an Empire. Does that hold in regard to the Village Council? Our great object in the Village Councils is not to have an opposition to a Ministry, so to speak; not to have a majority of eleven persons and a minority of seven always ranked against one another, voting against one another in Party divisions and attempting to carry on the government of some small parish of 300 or 400 persons by machinery which is suitable to a great Empire, but not to communities of that description. We should endeavour to avoid Party, and the very fact that any form of minority on the whole is inimical to strict Party discipline makes it all the more suited for the management of local affairs. Then I pass to the next example brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, who said that before you apply it to villages you ought to apply it to larger communities. But I would point out that in the constitution of our great communities it is almost impossible there should be class divisions in the body they select. No doubt the mass of voters belong to the working class; but, then, all the ratepayers are directly concerned in the financial management of the urban district, and know they are directly concerned; and the very fact that from the unskilled labourers at the one end of the scale to the merchants at the other end there is sensible gradation of classes mingling with each other makes it most unlikely you should have in the urban representatives of bodies such division of class or such exclusion of any class as we may have here and there in the village communities of England; therefore, again I do not think the analogy prevails. What are the special dangers which menace us—I do not take an alarmist view—or which may menace us in regard to the Village Councils? I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that in the greater number of parishes in England there is not now, and there will not be after this Bill passes, any of that species of personal or class jealousy which would exclude those who may be shortly described as the squire or parson. In some cases, however, I am afraid there may be, and just for the very reason that they ought not to be excluded; and in these cases, be it recollected, there are none of those gradations of classes which you find in our great towns. You have constantly the whole land of the parish farmed by one or two farmers, and owned, perhaps, by one individual. You have, then, what may be called at one end of the scale four individuals paying all the rates—the squire and his three tenants—and you have at the other end of the scale the agricultural labourers having nine-tenths of the votes at least. In the cases where there happens to be friction between these classes is it not perfectly certain that you will have all the owner class—the landlord, the farmer, and the parson'—absolutely excluded, although they pay every sixpence of the rates directly or indirectly, from any share in the government of the village? That, I think, would be a great evil, and we ought to guard against it if we can. As the plan my right hon. Friend has put on the Paper and proposed will guard against this danger, and as the danger is a real one—though I hope not of wide range in operation—I shall certainly feel it my duty to vote for my right hon. Friend's Amendment if he goes to a Division.

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

said, the reason which prevailed in 1870 for supporting the Amendments, embracing cumulative voting, in the Education Bill ought not to prevail on the present occasion. The reason in 1870 was that it was of great importance to have the representatives of the various Religious Denominations upon the Education Boards, and especially the Roman Catholic minority, who, had it not been for the cumulative vote, would probably have been excluded from these Boards. He agreed entirely with the President of the Local Government Board in thinking that the present question in relation to the Parish Council was entirely different from the educational question. The matter had been so fully debated by the three previous speakers that he should only mention one point which had not yet arisen, and which was, comparatively speaking, a matter of detail. He should submit to those who were in favour of any such scheme as that which had been proposed that it was one which was absolutely open to the remarks which had been made by the President of the Local Government Board as to the practical difficulty of its adoption. Anyone who knew the condition of a rural parish which had a School Board to elect and a Parish Council to elect would know the difference between the two modes of election. The difference there was already between the School Boards and the Parliamentary elections was sufficiently difficult to grasp even to educated persons. In the Parliamentary elections they drilled the elector into making a cross opposite the name of the candidate instead of putting his initials and numbers, telling him that if he put numbers his vote would be lost, and immediately afterwards in the ease of the School Board elections they put him under an entirely different system of voting— namely, of putting numbers. If they were now to add to the difficulty by adding a third and different scheme of election as now proposed they would render the matter still more confusing to the individual elector.

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

remembered some years ago supporting this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and he had always supported him. In 1885, in the first election, there was a great number of spoiled papers on account of persons not being used to voting, but in his own particular election there were only three spoiled. He adduced that to show that people were altogether mistaken in supposing that the ordinary voters were so stupid that they could not do what they were required to do. He always thought this question was prejudiced by being spoken of as representation of minorities. This scheme was not minority representation at all necessarily. What they understood, speaking of a minority, was that which was not a majority of the whole. It was a very different thing to a minority as a whole, seeing that they might have the whole made up of various minorities and different classes of people. In reality it was not minority representation, but it was an endeavour to get each of the various classes of people— although they might be a minority of the whole—represented upon a Board. He considered that the present was an extremely opportune time for introducing the plan proposed by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, and by beginning at the bottom in this way they would be adopting an educational process which would be extremely useful when they came to apply it to larger areas. The Leader of the Opposition said he was not so sure about this being a good plan for utilising Members of Parliament, as the two cases were extremely different. If he had his way he should be inclined to elect Members of Parliament by this process. He supported the plan proposed by the right hon. Member for Bodmin, because it would secure that all classes and interests would be represented, and thus lead to a better and wiser administration of local affairs.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, if he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Courtney) in his fears and doubts, he should share his desire that some means should be employed to bring about a better state of things. For his part, he had not the slightest fear about either the squire or the parson or the farmer getting on to the new Parish Councils. He believed the difficulty would be to get the labourers on in sufficient numbers. As to the fear that the squire and the farmer would not get on, he thought hon. Members opposite would know from other experience that for many a long year to come the Radicals would have the greatest difficulty in K'etting a minority even on the Parish Council. He did not share the right hon. Gentleman's fears, which he hoped and firmly believed would be falsified.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

said, that the President of the Local Government Board had given an amusing but perfectly imaginary account of what took place in the House a few years ago. There was no amateur lecture at all; a voting paper was issued, and, so far from a large number of members failing to understand the question, as a matter of fact there was only one spoilt paper. Proportional representation was already in operation in School Board elections, and in the evidence before the Education Commission it it appeared that the Educational Department and the chairmen of our principal School Boards were strongly in favour of it. He had the honour of being a member of that Commission, and his colleagues had not the slightest doubt that the existence of proportional representation had materially contributed to the successful working of the Education Act. They thought, however, that the system might be amended by the introduction of the transferable vote now before the House, which they rightly considered would be an improvement. The plan now proposed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin was simpler than the proposal in the Bill; it gave no advantage to any one class over another. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board spoke of the cumulative vote as new-fangled. Now, what was the system he himself proposed? It was itself so new-fangled that it had not even yet an English name. To speak of it they had to use a French one. It was the French scrutin de liste. It was tried in France and worked so badly that it was abandoned by general consent. But it was not tried even in France under a form so monstrously and glaringly unjust as in this Bill. In France the scrutin de liste only applied to departments, and though even that was felt to be unjust, still the differences between different departments introduced some mitigating elements. But here the whole of each Council was to be elected on a single list, and he believed it would have been impossible to have suggested any plan of election so likely to introduce ill-feeling and injustice as the one in the Bill. It really did not seem to him that the Government understood their own proposal. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government would adhere to the system proposed in the Bill—namely, "One Man One Vote." That was not the principle in the Bill at all; the prin- ciple in the Bill was something totally different—namely, that every man was to have not one vote, but as many votes as there were persons to be elected. His right hon. Friend proposed this Amendment in order to carry out what the Government told them was their intention—namely, that each elector should have one vote, and one vote only. Hon. Members above the Gangway had gone all over the country advocating "One Man One Vote." Surely, then, he might appeal to them when they had an opportunity to carry it out. How could they expect the country to believe in their sincerity if, directly they had the chance of carrying out their principles, they ran away from them? If they did not support the principle of One Man One Vote now, how would they explain such inconsistency? He would not, however, suspect them of any such intention. He hoped they would go into the Lobby with his right hon. Friend and himself this time. The Government could not complain of them for doing so. He claimed the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, because he had told them that the Government intended to adhere to the principle in the Bill— namely, "One Man One Vote." That was not in the Bill at present, but his right hon. Friend proposed to introduce it, and he felt satisfied that it would materially contribute to the satisfactory working of Parish Councils, as it had to that of School Boards.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, that having had personal experience of the system that had been advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock), he felt bound to say that that system in the Metropolitan area had been absolutely successful in one respect—namely, in securing a share in the election to every school of thought and every shade of opinion. The system recommended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) was not exactly the same, but it was cognate in its objects and would produce similar results, and he was sure, apart from its success in the Metropolitan area, that in the districts it would have the effect of securing a share of representation to certain very important classes in whom Members on that side of the House were specially interested, and on that account he should strongly support it. He earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Mover would go to a Division, and if so he (Sir R. Temple) would go with him.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, as he understood the matter, the elector was to come to the poll, to have a paper given him with the names of Brown, Jones, and Robinson upon it, and he might either vote straight and solely for Brown, or else put 1 against Brown, 2 against Jones, and 3 against Robinson. That was as he understood the Amendment; he thought it was a very complicated matter, and if they were going to introduce a complicated matter of this description they should not try it upon the rustic, but upon the superior persons who elected Members to this House. He objected to this system of making the minority appear to be a majority. He thought the majority should preponderate, and had no toleration for minorities, except that they should have the right left to them to work on to become a majority, as they were doing on that side. It seemed to him that those methods were all too clever, and were a mistake. The system of England was said to be a representative system. Yes, but it was representative by the method of choice; that was to say, they were not to put the whole of the electors into a Medea's cauldron and boil them down to one elected proportionally, but to choose a man who was to go forth to represent the views of the electors. He objected to the Amendment because the method proposed was too complicated. The present method might be bad, but it was simple and therefore better than these high falutin methods invented by mathematicians; and that was why on this occasion he should vote with the Ministry against the Amendment.

Question put.

The House divided: — Ayes 153; Noes 80.—(Division List, No. 423.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 2, line 26, leave out from "provided," to end of sub-section.

Clause 3 (Constitution of Parish Council).

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 2, line 31, after "Council," "for a rural parish. Page 2, line 23, before "twelve," insert "whole of the.

MR. EVERETT (Suffolk, Woodbridge)

said, he had an Amendment on this clause which he had handed into the Clerk at the Table to omit the word "twelve" in order to insert the word "three." He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept this alteration, which he moved mainly in the interests of those farmers who in many parts of England changed their occupations at Michaelmas term. If the clause stood as it was, a farmer coming into the parish at Michaelmas would be excluded from any chance of being on the Council of the parish for a period of 18 months, and in many cases perhaps he would be the largest ratepayer in the parish.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

I rise to Order. On this side of the House we have no idea what this Amendment is which is not upon the Paper.

MR. EVERETT

said, it was an Amendment upon Clause 3, in line 33. The clause provided that the Parish Council of a rural parish should be taken from the parochial electors or parishioners who had for 12 months preceding resided in the parish. A farmer coming into the occupation of a farm at Michaelmas— which was the ordinary custom in many parts of England—would, by the clause, be excluded from sitting upon the Parish Council of the parish until he had been a year and a-half in the parish, although he might be perhaps one of the largest ratepayers in the parish. He could not see any advantage whatever in excluding the largest ratepayers from a share in the improvement and management of the business of the parish during so long a period after they came to reside in the parish. Farms were continually changing hands, especially at times like these, and to exclude one, who would be among the principal ratepayers, from all share in the management of parish affairs for this long period of time seemed to him to be both undesirable and unnecessary. He could not imagine any good argument being urged in favour of keeping the farmer in this position and depriving him of the right of sitting on the Parish Council all this time. He would not become a parish elector until 1st July, 12 months after he entered into possession of his farm; but if they changed this to three months, he would be eligible to be elected at the first election that occurred after he became au occupier and ratepayer in the parish. It seemed to him that every argument was in favour of making it as easy as possible for a farmer to be elected on the Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 33, to leave out the word "twelve," and insert the word three."—(Mr. Everett.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'twelve' stand part of the Bill."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Amendment of his hon. Friend struck at the principle of what the House had accepted all through the Committee stage of the Bill, to restrict the election to parochial electors. It was considered that so long a period should, not elapse before a person should become a parochial elector; there was some difference of opinion on the question, and by a sort of general assent on both sides of the House a period of 12 months was fixed upon as the bonâfide period. The question was very fully threshed out in the House, and therefore he was not prepared to accept the Amendment.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member withdraw?

MR. EVERETT

No.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

moved— In page 2, line 36, after the words "from time to time," to insert the words "by the parish meeting, or in default of that meeting. The result of that would be that the number of Councillors would be fixed by the parish meeting instead of the County Council, and he thought that would be in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. He considered that the parishioners themselves were the best judges in the case. He knew, as a matter of fact, that in the case of School Boards there was considerable dissatisfaction, because the parishes themselves had not geuorally the option of saying how mauy Members the parish should have on the School Board. Though it might be well in the centralising system that the Department for Education should fix the number of members of a School Board, he did not think it was desirable the County Council should fix the number of Councillors.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 36, after the words "from time to time," to insert the words "by the parish meeting, or in default of that meeting." —(Mr. Fuller.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, his hon. Friend moved this Amendment in Committee, when it was fully discussed.

MR. FULLER

I did not move it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that some hon. Member moved it for the hon. Member, and a discussion took place upon it. The Education Act provided that the Department should fix the number of members on a School Board; and though he did not propose to impose the duty in this case upon the Local Government Board, he thought it should fall upon the County Council. The County Council represented every parish, and were acquainted with the rules of the localities, and therefore he thought it a very desirable tribunal for settling the administrative question. If the parish meeting was to decide the question, they would have enormous discrepancies; they would have parishes with large populations having small representation, and parishes with small populations having a large number of members, which would be most unsatisfactory. He could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Other Amendments made.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 4, page 4, line 29, after the word "Department," to insert the words" in case of a room used for the administration of justice or police by a Secretary of State."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, ho hoped these words did not indicate that schoolrooms could be used for the purpose of "justice or police." They had never dreamed of such a thing when the Bill went through Committee, and he hoped these few words it was proposed to insert would not bear that interpretation. He did not see anything in the earlier part of the clause to lead up to it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Amendment had nothing to do with schools, but related to suitable rooms which were used for justice or police, and maintained at the cost of the public. It might be convenient to use such rooms when they could be used without interfering with the business ordinarily transacted within them; and it was thought that in these cases a Secretary of State should have power to determine any question arising under the section.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he begged to move an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster). He said the clause provided that the power of looking after churchyards should be handed over to the Parish Council where the expenses of keeping them up were repayable out of the poor rate. He proposed to substitute for the word "repayable" the word "repaid."

Amendment proposed, In Clause 6, page 5, line 27, to leave out the words "are repayable," and insert the words "have been repaid."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'are repayable' stand part of the Bill."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had carefully considered this Amendment of the late Attorney General, and had arrived at the conclusion that "repayable" was the proper word. When two such distinguished lawyers disagreed it was not for him (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to intervene. The, Solicitor General was of opinion that to substitute the words suggested by the hon. Member would be to limit the effect of the clause.

MR. BYRNE

said, that when this matter was discussed in Committee this very objection was taken, and the right hon. Gentleman promised to consider what words could be put in in place of "repayable." The point was that this power ought only to be handed over where payment had actually been made out of the poor rate, but he did not think it mattered very much which word was adopted.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the matter had been fully considered, and the opinion of the Solicitor General was that the word in the Bill was the right word. As he had said, he did not feel competent to decide where two such high authorities as the Solicitor General and the late Attorney General differed. There was another place where there was a greater legal staff available for the discussion of a question of this kind, and no doubt the right word would be there selected. The intentions of both sides of the House were the same.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, that lie was originally responsible for these words, and he was quite satisfied that the proper word was "repaid," as it was optional to the Churchwardens whether they should come upon the poor rate or not. In many cases they had chosen not to do so, but to keep up the churchyards out of the resources of the Church.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In Clause 6, page 6, line 21, after "Parish Council." insert "for the parish interested in such allotments. Line 39, after "Act," insert "or for any matter under such Act. Line 40, after "parish meeting," insert "or, if a poll is taken, of the parochial electors. Page 7, line 7, after "Vestry," insert "and for this purpose the expression 'Vestry' shall include any meeting of ratepayers or voters. In Clause 8, page 7, line 40, after "walks," insert "and Sections 1S3 to 186 of 'The Public Health Act. 1875,' shall apply accordingly as if the Parish Council were a Local Authority within the meaning' of those sections.

MR. FULLER

moved an Amendment conferring upon the Parish Councils the power of providing and maintaining public clocks. Such clocks had been found useful in urban districts, though it had required two Acts of Parliament—that of 1875 and that of 1890—to obtain them. He believed these clocks would be equally useful in rural parishes.

Amendment proposed, In page 7, line 40, after the word "and," to insert the words "such powers as may be exercised by an Urban Authority under Section 165 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' in relation to public clocks; and."—(Mr. Fuller.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that this question had been fully discussed in Committee, and a strong feeling was expressed against the proposal. Both sides of the House disapproved of it, holding it to be undesirable to throw the expense of providing and repairing clocks on the rates.

SIR F. S. POWELL

said, the clause the hon. Member desired to introduce was a debateable clause. At the time of the passing of the Act of 1890 they found the clause so defective that they were obliged to introduce an amended clause.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 8, line 1, leave out from beginning of line, to "to utilise. Line 5, after "therefrom," insert "but without interfering with the right of any Corporation or person.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, be desired to move an Amendment giving the Parish Council power— (e) To clear out, widen, or otherwise improve the bed of any stream liable to Hoods, so as to prevent it from being prejudicial to the health or convenience of inhabitants of the parish, but without interfering with any private right or the drainage works of any Local Authority; and. This was a small addition to the powers of the Parish Council very much of the same character as those already inserted in the clause. He believed it would supply an omission in the clause, because in practical experience they had found that there was no Local Authority who could deal with these streams. Sometimes the flooding of small streams which were not under Sanitary Authorities did considerable damage to cottages and to roads, and caused serious inconvenience to the public. He should not ask for this power to be inserted here if it existed in any other form in any other Statute, but it did not. He could not find that a parish had any power of the kind under the Public Health Act. If the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill thought that the power was one which should be given to the District Councils rather than to the Parish Councils, he (Mr. Hobhouse) would withdraw the Amendment, and bring it up in another form on another clause, but the power did not seem to him too large a one to confer on Parish Councils, with, of course, a limit as to expenditure.

Amendment proposed, In page 8, line 5, after the word "and," to insert as a new sub-section, the words,— "(e) To clear out, widen, or otherwise improve the bed of any stream liable to floods, so as to prevent it from being prejudicial to the health or convenience of inhabitants of the parish, but without interfering with any private right or the drainage works of any Local Authority; and."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, his hon. Friend had answered his own case. The Legislature had not entrusted this power to any Local Authority whatsoever. It would be giving not a small but a very large power to Parish Councils to accept this Amendment. He could quite understand why the Legislature had not conferred this power on any Local Authority. In the Public Health Act it had carefully designed what powers Urban Authorities were to have, and the powers contained in the proposed Amendment were not amongst them, for the reason that these drainage and water rights were some of the most delicate and difficult points that arose not only in rural but in urban districts. The district he belonged to had had to obtain a special Act of Parliament for the purpose of dealing with these drainage works, and he did not think it would be safe to give the power to Parish Councils in such a Bill as this. He did not think the Parish Councils would have funds to carry it out, in the first instance; and, in the second place, he thought the exercise of such power by the parish might be prejudicial to private rights. Furthermore, in some cases works might be undertaken at the public expense which ought to be paid for by private owners. After careful consideration the Government had come to the conclusion that these powers ought not to be added to those to be conferred on the Parish Councils.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had rather overstated the proposal of the Amendment. The hon. Member had specially qualified it with the words— But without interfering with any private right or the drainage works of any Local Authority. Therefore, the objection of the right hon. Gentleman as to the danger to private rights was obviated by the terms of the Amendment itself. The proposal, so limited, was surely a very useful one, and ho (Mr. Courtney) regretted the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to accept it. He still hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would re-consider the matter, even if he introduced it in another place.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in the Amendment, because, though he heartily concurred with the feeling which had led him to put it on the Paper, he did not think it would meet the cases the hon. Member had in his mind. No doubt further powers were required for dealing with streams liable to Hood, and for preventing the pollution of small streams in country districts; but the question was one of the most difficult to deal with. Though he did not think the proposal was open to ail the objections the right hon. Gentleman had stated, he still was of opinion that it would complicate existing authorities and powers. Under the circumstances, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not consider it necessary to take a Division, as he (Mr. Long), for one, would not be able to support him.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, this matter had been looked into by the Government very carefully, with the view of seeing whether they could, without danger, invest the Parish Council with these powers. While appreciating the object the hon. Member had in view, the question of rights in running streams was so delicate and intricate, involving as it did the interests of riparian owners above and below, that he did not think they could conceive a case of widening or otherwise improving a stream without interfering with some private right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 8, line 23, after the words "mentioned or," to insert the word "to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment is out of Order—namely:— In page 8, line 25, at end, to insert the words,—" 2 (a) It shall be lawful for the Parish Council to make Regulations for the better management of the common lands within their district, and to take steps to prevent any encroachment on such common lands, or any interference with any rights of 'common' or 'free fishery' enjoyed by the inhabitants. (b) The Council may, on the application of any two or more commoners, and on their undertaking to defray the cost, appoint one or more shepherds to take charge of the stocks, and also of the stocks of such commoners on the common lands. (c) All Bye laws, Rules and Regulations made under this Act relating to common lands shall be approved of or allowed by the Board of Agriculture."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In pages, line 34, after "1891," insert "for the sale of charity estates. Line 35, leave out "of the Charity Commissioners," and insert "or approval required under those Acts. In Clause 9, page 9, line 34, after "Clauses," insert "Consolidation. Line 36, after "purchase by." insert "or on behalf of. Line 39, after "Clauses," insert "Consolidation. Page 10, line 2. after "purchased," leave out "by the Parish Council. Line 4. leave out from "No hiring of land," inclusive, to cud of sub-section. Line 10, after line 6, insert "(e) Nothing in this section shall authorise the Parish Council to acquire otherwise than by agreement any land for the purpose of any supply of water, or of any right of way.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 9, after the word "hiring," to insert the words.—"Any compensation awarded ton tenant in respect of any depreciation of the value to him of the residue of his holding caused by the withdrawal from the holding of the land hired by the Parish Council, or in respect of improvements within the meaning of 'The Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883,' shall as far as possible be provided for by taking such compensation into account in fixing, as the case may require, the rent to be paid by the Parish Council for the land hired by them, and the apportioned rent, if any, to be paid by the tenant for that portion of the holding which is not hired by the Parish Council. The award of the arbitrator or a copy thereof shall be preserved with the public books, writings, and papers of the parish."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had proposed this Amendment in pursuance of a pledge by the Solicitor General that new words should be proposed to take the place of the paragraph drawn up when Clause 10 was under discussion. The words as they originally stood were unintelligible to everyone, and he was bound to say that in the short time ho had been able to devote to the consideration of the present Amendment he had been unable to arrive at a clear idea of its meaning. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee an explanation, but considering the extreme difficulty of the question, and the fact that the Committee had only had a very few hours to consider the proposed Amendment, it would, perhaps, be desirable to leave it to be dealt with in another place. He (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) understood the proposal to be that, so far as any depreciation in the value of the holding caused by severance under the Hiring Clause to the tenant of the holding was concerned, or so far as the tenant's interest in certain specified improvements on the part of the land hired by the Parish Council was concerned, the tenant should be, if possible, compensated by a reduction in the rent of that part of the farm which still remained in his possession. As the words stood, matters of husbandly and tillage and the like, in respect of which a claim might be made by the tenant by the custom of the country, did not appear to be provided for. He should be glad if the Solicitor General would explain what was meant by the proposed Amendment.

SIR J. RIGBY

was understood to say that it was a satisfaction to him to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, for he had interpreted the meaning of words which, he confessed, required a great deal of attention, and which gave no little trouble in the framing of the clause. When the clause was originally drafted it was pointed out that it was too wide in its drafting, and that the compensation for severance in the form of reduced rent payable to the landlord would cover that which was payable, directly or indirectly, by an incoming tenant to an outgoing tenant, in respect of acts of husbandry, growing crops, and so on—matters which were usually the subject of cash transactions and ready-money payments. He had undertaken, therefore—and ho hoped he had succeeded—to produce an Amendment which would exclude what ought to be excluded, and include what ought to be included. He had in framing the clause followed in substance the words in the Agricultural Holdings Act, which enabled a landlord for certain definite purposes to take away from his tenant part of his holding, and which provided that any compensation that was given to the tenant in respect of depreciation of his holding should be in the form of a reduced rent. The Act was not, however, to prejudice any other payments that might be made payable to the tenant under any other Act of Parliament or by custom or otherwise. Then they dealt with improvements that would have at some time or other to come under the Agricultural Holdings Act and which were described in that Act. That was a somewhat different question, because the compensation was payable by the landlord to the tenant, and, as he had ventured to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, it would be quite unfair that the landlord should be relieved at the cost of the Parish Council from paying for that which would substantially improve his holding. On the other hand, they must not give the tenant more than his due. Under this clause the tenant would have in all cases of improvements in respect of which payment would be made under the Act of 1883 the benefit of that Act in the form of a reduction of rent, and the landlord would have a quid pro quo in the form of an increased rout from the Parish Council. The whole class of customary payments made independently of the Act would be unaffected by the Amendment. He admitted that, in a matter of such simplicity and technicality, until the clause had gone through the fire of longer criticism than was possible in the House of Commons on that occasion, it could not be said to have justified itself entirely; but he hoped that by what ho had said ho had made the intention of the Government—an intention which was acquiesced in on the other side—so clear that if in another place it were discovered that they had failed to carry out the agreement there might not be much difficulty in altering the Amendment. At present he thought the Amendment entirely carried out the intention with which it had been drawn.

* MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, WestDerby)

said, he believed the hon, and learned Gentleman endeavoured to give effect to the view that he expressed earlier, although whether the words he proposed would do all he desired and all that was necessary was another matter. The practical result of the hon, and learned Gentleman's proposal was that if the landlord suffered he was to be recouped by the Parish Council. The Parish Council could only recoup the landlord out of the rates. As in the vast majority of cases the rates would be paid by the landowner and the tenant, farmer, the practical result of all the Solicitor General's labour, animated as he had been with the best possible intentions, was that when the land was taken from someone who did not want to give it up and devoted to a purpose to which the owner and occupier did not want it to be devoted, and in that process damage was done to the owner and occupier, they were to be recouped by the Parish Council, and the Parish Council was to rely upon them to provide the necessary funds for recouping them. He did not think that anybody, unless it was for political purposes, would dispute that ho was correctly describing the result of the clause if it carried out the desires of its framers. Under these circumstances, be did not think the Government would expect the Opposition to receive it with any very loud professions of gratitude or regard it as in any way a satisfactory settlement of one of the main difficulties in the way of carrying out this Bill. However, he believed the clause carried out what the hon. Gentleman had undertaken to do, and he would accept the hon, and learned Gentleman's assurance that when it had been more carefully examined, if it should appear that it needed amendment, such Amendment would be inserted in another place.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

said, ho wished to point out that the landlord would not be recouped out of the rates, but out of the rents paid by the tenants.

MR. W. LONG

said, the hon. Gentleman did not take his point. There were cases in England where there were laud-lords and farmers, but no tenants.

MR. WARNER

said, he quite understood that, and he did not think that the hon. Gentleman had understood him. The men who paid the allotment rents would pay a higher price so as to cover the rent paid by the Parish Council.

MR. W. LONG

Suppose there are none?

MR. WARNER

I do not think in a case where there are no tenants who require allotments the Parish Council will take land.

MR. W. LONG

The hon. Gentleman absolutely fails to understand my point. There are cases in which men may take the land, and finding they cannot work it profitably may give it up. Will the hon. Gentleman see that point and address himself to it?

MR. WARNER

said, he saw the point, but he thought the case mentioned was very unlikely to occur. There were a great many allotments throughout the country, and such a case had hardly ever occurred. Of course, if the Parish Councils managed their affairs badly there would be a deficit, but he did not think the Parish Councils were likely to do so.

SIR W. HARCOURT

After the very reasonable speech made by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Long), I think we might now dispose of the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman admitted that my hon. and learned Friend (Sir J. Rigby) had fulfilled his undertaking as far as he could do so. He reserved his opinion as to the merits of the plan itself, but ho accepted the assurance of my hon. and learned Friend that the wording of the Amendment was a matter well deserving of being considered by the landlords. Under these circumstances, I think we might go on to the next Amendment.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, he thought the last words of the clause were unnecessary. He could not understand what right the Parish Council or the arbitrator would have to interfere between the landlord and his remaining tenants. It would be very much like establishing a Land Court, which ho did not understand the Government intended.

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

drew the attention of the hon. Member for North Somerset to the words providing that the arbitrator in fixing the rent should not make any addition in respect of compulsory hiring, and pointed out that this made it clear that the amount paid in respect of compulsory hiring would not come out of the rent.

Question put, and agreed to.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

moved the omission of Sub-section 6, and the substitution of a sub-section providing that Sections 5 and 6 of the Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act of 1887 should be held to be incorporated with and to apply to the hiring of land under the clause, both as between the superior landlord and the Parish Council, and as between the Parish Council and the allotment tenant, and that the owner of the land should be entitled to compensation for any deterioration of the land or damage to buildings due to any act or default of the Parish Council or their tenants. He said it appeared to him to be a great blot on the Pill that it did not provide for compensation either for the landlord, as desired by the right hon. Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin), or for the tenant, as desired by the hon. Member for Nottinghamshire (Mr. Charming). It was too late in a Bill of this description to leave out all reference to compensation, except to deny it, as the Bill did. If the tenant made improvements he was entitled to compensation, and if the landlord had to endure the consequences of dilapidation, he was equally entitled to recoupment. So important did Sir E. Birkbeck's Act of 1887 deem it that there should be compensation that it prevented any contracting-out of its provisions. He thought the Bill was apt to become very unjust to the tenant. Under Sub-section 4 of this clause direct authority was given to the tenant to erect buildings. Who, if there were no right to compensation, would be good husbandman enough to erect buildings? Anyone who, with Sub-section 6 in the Bill refusing compensation, did erect buildings would be very imprudent. The Bill, therefore, offered direct encouragement to imprudent expenditure on agriculture. He thought the clause equally unjust to the landlord in that it contained no provision to enable him to recoup himself against dilapidations of buildings or land. One objection raised to the proposal made by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) the other day was that it did not secure that any compensation which might be recovered would find its way to the tenants. Such an objection could not be urged against his Amendment, which contemplated justice to both landlord and tenant. Another objection raised to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire's proposal was that where there was compulsion there ought not to be compensation. This objection was met by the terms of his Amendment, which incorporated the Allotments Act of 1887, which distinctly stated that there should only be compensation where the improvements were made by the tenant with the consent of the landlord in writing. His hon. Friend the Member for the West Derby Division (Mr. Long) had remarked that what might be just in the case of purchase might not be just in the case of hiring. What, however, was a lease but, hiring, and how many leases were there to-day in which there were not provisions for compensation? Practically, and properly, none; and if the lease was silent, the Agricultural Holdings Act gave the right. It must be remembered that 14 years was the minimum term under this clause, and there might be a hiring even for 99 years. It would be manifestly unjust in the case of along lease of that kind that there should be no provisions for compensation. He submitted his Amendment as giving just rights to both landlord and tenant, as reconciling the proposal of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire on behalf of the tenant, with the proposal of the right hon. Member for Sleaford on behalf of the landlords, as making the Bill accord with the times, and as giving security for good husbandry.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 28, to teave out Sub-section (6) of Clause 10 in order to insert the words "Sections 5 and 6 of The Allotments and Cottage Gardens (Compensation for Crops) Act, 1887, shall be held to be incorporated with and to apply to the hiring of land under this clause, both as between the superior landlord and the Parish Council as his tenants, and also as between the Parish Council and the allotment tenant, and the owner of the land shall also be entitled to compensation for any de- terioration of the land, or damage to buildings, occasional by any act or default of the Parish Council or their tenant."—(Sir. A. Rollit.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

I should have been in a much hotter position to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument if I had had the Amendment before me, and I may say it is very inconvenient to have Amendments of this kind sprung upon the House without notice.

SIR A. ROLLIT

I would point out that I had only one day in which to prepare it.

SIR W. HARCOURT

As regards the Government, their position is very clear. We originally desired to put in what is now in the clause; that is to say, that there should be no compensation for improvements, but to make an exception by introducing the Allotments Act of 1887, and the clauses to which the hon. Member has referred. Finding that there was on the Opposition side of the House an objection to introducing the very proposal which the hon. Member now proposes to introduce, the Government withdrew that proposal. The hon. Member now asks us to substitute for the clause agreed upon a similar clause to that which we originally proposed. Of course, we cannot assent; to that, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, lie could not accept the Amendment exactly in the form in which it was proposed. His desire was to have compensation for both sides. But he would point out to the hon. Member that the Bill as it stood provided fully for the compensation by the Parish Council of the allotment holders. The question raised was one of such vital importance that he must say even at this last moment that he deeply regretted that any Liberal Ministry should have consented to expunge the principle that the Parish Council should be entitled to compensation. Even now, if it were the general feeling of the House, he should be glad to submit an Amendment which would guarantee to the Parish Council compensation for any increase in the letting value of the land and, on the other hand, provide for the landowner compensation in proportion to any depreciation of the land which might arise from bad cultivation. It was, however, really hardly worth while to press the Amendment in the form in which it had peen moved, although he heartily sympathised with the spirit which had animated the hon. Member who moved it.

* MR. STRACHEY (Somerset, S.)

said, he hoped the hon. Member would press the Amendment, as it was a very important one. When the Bill was in Committee he ventured to suggest to the President of the Local Government Board that in the interests of husbandry the ought to compensate the landlord if the land was made any worse by the occupation of the Parish Council, and that, on the other hand, if its condition were improved the Parish Council should be compensated for that improvement. That was the principle involved in this Amendment, and he hoped the hon. Member would persist with it. It scorned to him a, very improper tiling for a Liberal Government to come Forward with a proposal that no compensation should be paid for the improvement of land, and unless they carried this Amendment he thought they would practically be saying to the country that they did not consider it necessary in the interests of good husbandry that a man should be paid for his improvements or made to suffer if he did not farm the land properly.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, the object of the next Amendment— which was in his name—was to prevent hop gardens or fruit land being broken up or compulsorily hired by a. Parish Council. There was a very strong feel-in the County of Kent in favour of this Amendment, and had received several deputations on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dart-ford had also informed him that he was in favour of this restriction. While it might be reasonable in the case of ordinary agricultural land to hire it compulsorily it would be most unreasonable to do it in the case of a hop garden or fruit orchard. It would also be very difficult to assess the amount of compensation to be paid to the outgoing tenant, These industries were of a speculative character; it might possibly happen that several years in succession were very bad, but that the loss might be made up in one year; therefore, if the farmer were suddenly deprived of his land at the end of a series of unprofitable years, it would be impossible to say what compensation ought to be paid to him, and unless a large sum were awarded to him he might be a great sufferer. Under the clause as it stood permanent pasture was not to be allowed to be broken up, and ho ventured to submit that hop gardens and fruit orchards should be placed in the same category. It would be very detrimental not only to Kent, but to the whole country if the principle of the Amendment were not embodied in the Bill. A great deal of capital was embarked in hop and fruit cultivation, more labour was expended upon it than upon any other branch of agriculture, and if such lands were to be taken under the Act there would be less employment for the labouring classes. He trusted that the Government would satisfy the wishes of the people of Kent and Sussex and other counties interested in hop and fruit cultivation by accepting the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 4, after "1892," to insert the words "or the hiring of any land which at the passing of this Act is under the cultivation of hops or fruit."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)

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

SIR W. HARCOURT

This is really the same Amendment as was argued the other day. It is out of the question that Parish Councils will take land which is necessarily of very high value when they can select land of less value for allotment purposes. The case of permanent pasture is quite different. If it were conceivable that the Parish Council would seek to take land of the most costly value, or committing any folly of that kind, the Local Government Board would restrain them from doing so. The House will be perfectly safe in leaving the matter in the hands of the Parish Council in the first place, and in the power of the Local Government Board in the second event. No Parish Council will be allowed to take land for which it will have to pay an exorbitant sum, and I quite agree that it would be very undesirable to damage these hop gardens and fruit orchards. At the same time, I do not think there is any reason for anticipating that such a thing will be done.

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)

said, he represented a district very largely interested in growing hops and fruit. These industries were carried on both on large scales and on very small scales, and it could not be suggested that in pressing the Amendment they were advocating the cause of a particular class. It did seem to him to be monstrous that whether a man had one or 100 acres he should be liable to-have the best part of his holding forcibly taken from him, with probably detrimental results to the rest of the farm, and without any adequate compensation. The compulsory taking of land under any circumstances was to him exceedingly distasteful, and he felt ashamed now to be discussing not whether the robbery should be allowed to take place at all, but what class of land should be exempted from it. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was probably right in saying that there was not much ground for apprehending that hop gardens would be taken by the Parish Council. The valuation of the land would prevent, that. He knew how difficult it was to bring home to the minds of hon. Members the peculiar circumstances of industries with which they were not acquainted. They might be astonished to hear that the expense of hop cultivation varied from £19 or £20 to. £60 per acre per year. He had himself cultivated hops at £19 and at £50 per acre. What would be the effect if a hop garden were taken for allotment purposes? A small grower employing only two or three men might be absolutely crippled, while in the case of a large grower the effect would be much worse. If a hop garden were taken the labourer would do the work upon it as cheaply as he could, and instead of £60 a year being spent on every acre the labouring population of the parish would be deprived of the opportunity of earning that amount. The case of the fruit orchard was quite different, the expenses of an established orchard being very small and frequently paid by the pur- chasers of the green fruit. For instance, in his own Division it was the practice to sell the green cherries on the trees in the month of June, and the expenses of keeping the birds off and picking the fruit were undertaken by the purchaser, and therefore the question of labour did not arise so much. But, still, he could conceive cases where owners of the live or six acres of fruit land would, if the land were taken from them absolutely, lose their means of livelihood. be hoped that the Government would give their favourable consideration to the present proposal.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved to insert in Clause 11 an Amendment providing that no Parish Council should be permitted to incur an expenditure in any local financial year involving a rate of more than Id. in the £1 without the consent of the parish meeting. The effect of the Amendment would, he said, simply be to give the parish meeting a voice in the matter of exceptional expenditure. The proposal was, ho thought, a reasonable one. The Parish Council might fairly be trusted to deal with matters the expenditure on which was limited to a 1d. rate; but when it came to matters in which a 4d. or 6d. rate was involved, it surely was desirable to have the control of the parish meeting, both on the grounds of uniformity and of economy. He thought that was the intention when the clause was re-arranged in Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 8, after the word "liability," to insert the wonts "which will involve a rate of one penny in the pound or upwards for any local financial year or."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

My hon. Friend is quite right. There was considerable confusion when the clause was amended in Committee. I am quite willing to accept the view of the House upon the present proposal. Our original intention was that the Parish Council should not incur, without the consent of the parish meeting, any expense iuvolving a rate exceeding 1d. in the £1.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

I am quite ready to modify my Amendment in that way.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

As I say, this clause was altered by Amendments hastily prepared at the end of a long Debate. I think this proposal will give greater, and very necessary, control to the parish meeting in matters involving anything more than ordinary expenditure.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, To leave out the word "of," and insert the words "not exceeding."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

MR. W. LONG

said, as he understood it, his hon. Friend proposed to move an Amendment which had for its object the reduction of the limit of 6d. in the Bill to 1d. [Mr. H. H. FOWLEK and Mr. H. HOBHOUSE: No, no!] They did not wish to narrow the powers of the Parish Council by unduly limiting their expenditure, while, on the other hand, the general desire was that there should be no encouragement to extravagance. There was a danger that the mere fixing of the limit at 6d. would be taken as an indication that the Parish Council should incur expenditure up to that rate, and, in his view, the Amendment, while giving all the necessary financial powers, would at the same time tend to economy. For that reason he hoped it would find favour with the House of Commons.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

said, he hoped the proposal would not be accepted by the House. The effect of the proposal would be to involve six parish meetings each year, and that would be a very serious matter. He hoped the matter would be left as it was.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he could not see why hon. Gentlemen should object to the parish meeting exercising proper control over its own Council in the matter of expenditure. Surely the electors ought to have a voice in the spending of their own money! He could not think that the House would accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. For his part, he was in favour of giving as much control as possible to the parish meeting.

MR. CONYBEAEE (Cornwall Camborne)

said, he apprehended the elect ion of the Parish Council would be fought on questions of policy involving the expenditure of public money, and the electors would then have a voice in the matter. In his opinion, the difficulty would be to get the parish to consent to an expenditure of more than 1d. in the £1, and, therefore, he did not see any necessity for this proposal, which appeared to him to be restrictive. He was quite sure that whore airy question of expenditure was involved, it would be decided by the Parish Council in accordance with the feelings and wishes of the parish meeting

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

was understood to say that, for his part, lie was disposed to give the parish power to deal with the matter of expenditure; and he did not think there was much in the point, since the Parish Council would have the opportunity of consulting the parish meeting.

MR. FULLER

said, he knew of a parish with 500 inhabitants whore a 1d. rate would only realise £3 10s. He thought it would be very inconvenient that the consent of a parish meeting should be required every time the Council wanted to spend £3 10s.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

said, he agreed there might be such cases. There was, however, force in the argument that the 1d. limit might suggest that the Council should spend up to that amount. Would it not he better to agree that nothing exceeding a two-penny rate should be speut without the consent of the parish meeting?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Government would not put presssure upon the House in this matter. They left the question to the House. Perhaps it would be well to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), and to say a three-penny rate.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

I am willing to agree to that.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

I said a two-penny rate.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

And I said a three-penny rate.

Amendment amended, by substituting "threepence" for "one penny."

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

moved— To leave out Sub-section 3 of Clause 11, for the purpose of substituting the following subsection:— The sum raised in any local financial year by the Parish Council for their expenditure other than expenses under the adoptive Acts shall not exceed a sum equal to a rate of 6d. in the £1 on the rateable value of the parish at the commencement of the year.

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

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, he thought he was entitled to say that, if this sub-section were omitted, it might prevent his raising the question involved in an Amendment which he had on the Paper for a later stage. Perhaps if they were to deal with the question now it would be convenient. When it came on before it was late on a Friday night and Members were anxious about the Saturday holiday, the fear of which being taken away was then before them. The question was whether the rates were to tie raised upon ordinary assessment or whether they were to be raised in the same way in which the special rates for sanitary purposes were raised. His argument was that they should levy the rate in the same war as at present the rate for sanitary purposes was levied. That was the broad foundation. It would be unfair to rate the fanners upon any other plan when nobody else, under the terms of this Amendment, was so rated. Parliament had already recognised the justice of the claims of the farmer, both in the case of the sanitary question and in connection with the adoptive Acts. So that, in those two eases at least, Parliament had recognised that agricultural land should not be rated at its full value. There was a special reason in relation to that question which he would like to urge. Would the farmers have the benefit of the rate about to be raised? He thought not. He thought the argument brought forward on the previous occasion when the question was under discussion did not apply. The fact that people in towns had rated themselves for libraries and like purposes was not an argument applicable in the ease of the agriculturists, It was an unjust argument. As far as he knew or had ever heard, there was no solid or reasonable argument in favour of rating agricultural land higher than any other interest was called upon to pay or contribute towards the administration of the country. These were new rates that were to be imposed, and they had some right to ask for evidence of the justice that underlay the proposal. It could not be said that time was wasted in discussing this question if they could induce the Government to give the agricultural community relief from a crushing burden. Under these circumstances, he thought it right to raise the question, and he hoped he would have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman.

* MR. W. LONG

said, his hon. and gallant Friend's object was to put before the House an Amendment with reference to the incidence of taxation. The question, he (Mr. Long) thought, came very properly on that Amendment later on. He feared if they proceeded now they might be excluded from dealing with the Amendment. He would suggest that his hon. and gallant Friend should not press his Amendment now.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that was the view he took of the matter also.

Question, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words proposed be inserted," put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 12, line 15, to leave out the words "for any local financial year," and insert the words "and for the purpose of this enactment, the expression 'expenses' includes any annual charge, whether of principal or interest, in respect of any loan.

COMMANDER BETHELL

moved— In page 12, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (4), of Clause 11, and insert the words "The expenses of a Parish Authority shall be paid out of a rate to be called the parochial rate, and the Parish Authority shall, for the purpose of obtaining payment of such expenses, have the same powers as a Board of Guardians have for the purpose of obtaining contributions for special expenses under Section 230 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' and the Oveerseers shall com ply with the order of the Parish Authority by levying the rate as if it were a rate for such special expenses.

Question proposed, "That the words 'Subject to the provisions of the Act' stand part of the Hill."

MR. W. LONG

said, he willingly supported his hon. and gallant Friend's views on this question. He thought this was one of the most important Amendments that could be moved. His hon. and gallant Friend had rather understated than overstated the case in the remarks which he had addressed to the House a few moments ago; and he (Mr. Long) would submit that, if the Government did not accept the Amendment, they would be, for the first time, altering the law of the incidence of rates to the prejudice of agricultural interests. Hitherto, the law had recognised that expenditure incurred for the special benefit of the urban part of a district should fall on the agricultural portion of that district under a reduced assessment. They were giving certain new powers which they were to put into operation in the agricultural districts; and he asked the House to consider the way in which the expenditure would fall upon those districts. If they adhered to the proposals of the Bill, his belief was that they would be doing a great injustice, for the hist time, to the agricultural interest, which was already sufficiently depressed, and was not in a position to bear increased rates. He had received communications from Hoards of Guardians and Rural Sanitary Authorities all over the country, and he had received communications also from a large number of owners and occupiers stating that they regarded the incidence of rating as most unfair, and expressing the hope that on Report the House would reconsider its determination, and accept the proposal of his hon. and gallant Friend. He did not wish to bind himself—nor did his hon. and gallant Friend, he was sure—to the exact words of the Amendment; but what they asked was that the Government should adopt the principle, and enable the rate to be levied not upon the whole, but upon a reduced assessment. He would fain hope that even now the President of the Local Government Board would see his way to consent to this act of justice being done to the agricultural community, which was certainly not in a position to boar fresh burdens.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought the importance of this question had been rather exaggerated. As he understood the proposal, it was that agricultural and other lands in a parish should pay only one-fourth of the rates for parish expenses paid by house and other property. But a great many of the costs which would be incurred under the Bill were borne on the poor rate, without any one of these exceptions. With regard to the adoptive Acts, they had introduced words which would reserve the incidence of the adoptive Acts. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, as he did not believe that any substantial injustice would be done.

SIR R. TEMPLE

felt bound, from his own local knowledge of that part of England where he resided, to give his testimony to the general truth of all that had fallen from his lion, and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness and the hon. Member for the West Derby Division. This very important matter was discussed in Committee; therefore this was the second time he had had the advantage of hearing a speech on the subject from his hon. and gallant Friend, and also from the Minister in charge of the Bill. He had understood from his former speech that the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that the practical effect of this Amendment on the Parish Councils would be very serious, and that the reduction in rating was so great that these Local Authorities would have very little at their disposal; that, therefore, this money was wanted, and that the farmers must pay. Now, on the contrary, he understood from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-night that so much of this taxation was already imposed upon the agricultural land in various ways that very little remained to be dealt with, and that, consequently, the financial effect, instead of being great, as it was supposed it would be, would be small, and upon that ground the right hon. Gentleman desired the Amendment to be withdrawn. He wondered which version was correct. Which thoughts were right, the first or second? He rather thought the right hon. Gentleman's first thoughts were right. He believed, with his hon. and gallant Friend, that this Amendment would have a very beneficial effect on the agricultural land of the farmers in every village. Besides the various items which had been detailed to them that evening with so much precision by the President of the Local Government Board, there were a good number of items which were under the control of the Parish Council which would be affected by this Amendment. There were, too, in addition, many future and possible contingent expenses which might be incurred by the Parish Council, and also some of those which obviously fell under the clauses of this Bill were liable to indefinite expansion, and it was impossible to say to what extent the expenditure might go. Of course, there was the limit of the 6d. rate, which, he was afraid, would be worked up to the very utmost. But according to his hon. and gallant Friend, whose opinion he shared, a very unfair proportion of this 6d. rate upon the parish would be borne by the agricultural land of the farmers in comparison with the villagers. Be that as it might, the main point of the Amendment was this: that now they had an opportunity of adjusting the parish taxation in a manner more equitable than it had hitherto been, why not take this golden opportunity which, if now lost, might never recur, and attempt to do a little justice to this oppressed and overburdened industry—namely, the agricultural land? That this would be a matter of justice was obvious to everybody who knew the condition of these large parishes. The fact was, that under the régime of these Parish Councils the improvements that were made would chiefly be made to the village and its immediate neighbourhood, and the people who enjoyed the benefit of the improvements would be the inhabitants of the village. But the latter would be taxed comparatively lightly; while, on the other hand, the farmers who lived apart from the village and who would, consequently, benefit much less, would nevertheless have a very large proportion of the taxation, which was most unjust. He contended that the manner in which the rate fell upon the farmers was excessive in comparison with the manner it fell on the villagers. The incidence of taxation would fall lightly in favour of the village land as against agricultural land. That was an injustice to which the farmer had long been sub- jected more or less, and which would be intensified and perpetuated by this Bill if passed without modification. The injustice would be greater even than it had been hitherto; and if the Bill passed unmodified, he warned the Government they would have left a sense of wrong rankling in the minds of the farmers of England.

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

said, he thought he could suggest a reason why the rate should be levied in the way suggested by his hon. and gallant Friend. Under Clause 8 arrangements were made with regard to sanitary matters, upon which he hoped the villages would set their houses in order. There were very important questions included in the Instructions—those of water and drains, for instance. But while it would be only fail' that the farmers should eon-tribute, as at present, to the sanitary rates, it would be most unfair to call upon them to contribute to the whole of the future rating of the Bill. He felt certain that the right hon. Gentleman would remove the adverse feeling of the farmers of England if the right hon. Gentleman yielded upon this point. If the Government proposals were insisted upon they would feel aggrieved. He felt that if the right hon. Gentleman yielded he would meet the general wishes of the House.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he previously had a clause on the Paper regarding that question; but in deference to the feelings of the House, and especially that of the right hon. Gentleman, he refrained from raising it. He would like, however, to protest against the attitude of the Government on this occasion. There was one point of considerable importance, and that was the question as to urban districts. There were a great number of parishes which were largely agricultural in character, and vet contained towns of considerable population, and he would urge that the position of those parishes under the. Bill would be an unfair one as compared with that of the urban districts. A large portion of the money raised by the new charges on agricultural lands would be spent on urban improvements for the benefit of the town rather than the rural population—for instance, in providing recreation rooms, which would be of little benefit to the farmer. What did the farmer want with that? He would put another point: He thought the Government, in the present depressed state of agriculture, might have done a gracious thing by extending to the general parish expenditure the exemptions which were now allowed under the adoptive Acts, especially as it was admitted that that general expenditure under this Bill would he comparatively small. They might thus have taken the opportunity of showing that they had some sympathy with the agricultural interest in the depression that rested upon it at the present time.

COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY (Shropshire, Newport)

said, as an agricultural Member, he would like to raise his voice in appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this important matter. It seemed to him that there were two ways in which the question could be looked at—from the point of view of abstract justice and also of expediency. As a matter of justice the case presented for the agricultural interest by the Amendment was a very strong one; if it were not accepted the result would be irritation. He thought it would be seen that the interest of the agriculturist would be saved by the Amendment. He very much feared that if the Government did not accept that view, they would, on the ground of expediency, act wisely in accepting the Amendment with a view to secure the smooth working of the Bill.

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

said, he really thought the Government ought to consider the disadvantage at which rural districts would be placed as compared with urban districts. The argument as to Section 8 was very important in this souse. He hoped that, even now, the Government would consent to this, look into the question, and make this concession.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 46.—(Division List, No. 424.)

* MR. W. LONG

moved to insert the following sub-section:— The provisions of Section 4 of 'The Poor Bate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' shall not apply to any rate levied for defraying the expenses of a Parish Council or a parish meeting, whether separately or together with other expenses. He did not propose to raise again the question as to who paid the rates, but he would invite the House to consider that there was no fair comparison to be drawn between the position of an occupier in a populous urban district and that of an occupier in a rural district. In the urban district the owner of the house received the best rent he could demand in the market, while in the rural district the cottages were let not at the best price they could command, but at the price which obtained in the neighbourhood. Labourers' cottages were let at a rent which could not possibly include the rates, as it yielded only about 2 per cent. on the money expended on their erection irrespective altogether of the site and cost of repair and maintenance. What the House was asked to do was to reverse the old principle by which the man who called the piper paid for the tune. They were asked hero to say that the man who did not call the piper should pay for the tune. He wished to look at the matter purely from a business point of view. Did they mean to trust the working men of England or did they not? If they did, let the labourers and the working men understand what their position was. Let the working men know that if they wanted certain things those things would cost a certain amount of money, and that they themselves must feel the cost. If the Government would do this, then let them accept his Amendment. It had been urged that the acceptance by the Mouse of this Amendment would produce an impossible condition of things in many of the urban districts of the country. He was prepared to admit that the wording of the Amendment was liable to a change of that kind; but if the Government would accept the principle, he would agree to alter the phraseology—the principle was that there should not be compulsion on an unwilling owner, but that where the owner was unwilling in future to pay the rate, the occupier, and the occupier alone, should be responsible. The Bill since its introduction had undergone considerable change. He need only point to the letting clauses, which had been the subject of much contention in the House, and which had been largely altered. One of the results of these clauses had been to throw on the Councils about to be created very greatly increased expenditure. The Government had in this clause provided, as far as they could, that there should be justice done between owners and occupiers of property; but so long as they kept the Bill as it stood, they would be enacting that while there should be compensation paid for this and for that, the burden of that compensation should fall on the owner of property, and that the small occupier or cottager who would derive the benefit from the letting should know nothing of the expenditure. He submitted that that was au unsound as well as an unfair proposition. They were told that what was wanted to lie done was to revivify the country villages—that it was desirable to introduce into the country villages some of that local municipal life which was to be found in the country towns. Well, was there anyone in the House or out of it who would contend that the Corporations now existing would have been as practical and energetic as they were if they had not seen the necessity for independent action and self-help? Hon. Members know that one of the reasons why the great urban districts of the country were more full of local life than the country districts was because each man knew well that he was fighting the battle of life for himself, and that, although he might, not have to pay the rates, because he was able to compound for them, if the rates went up he would have to pay a higher rent for his cottage, and would have to earn higher wages or have less money for himself and his family. The reverse was the case in the country villages. It did not matter in the country villages whether the rates were increased or not. In the country villages the labourer would not know whether his votes on the Parish Council increased expenditure or decreased it. This was not treating the agricultural labourer as a human being, like those who were to be found in the towns. He believed that the majority of the agricultural labourers would resent this proposal to conceal from them the effect of their own work. His opinion was that the labourers were quite prepared, if they desired certain things, to pay for them. The agricultural labourers amongst whom he lived, and whom he thoroughly understood, even if he did not now represent them, were hard-headed and sensible men, who would not betray a trust. But the Government were afraid to trust them. They were giving them power to elect Councillors, and were inviting those Councillors when elected to spend money. He did not suppose that ever before a Bill had been proposed in the House in regard to which it was impossible for its supporters to deny that whatever other result came from it it was sure to bring about an increase of rates. Expenditure would be incurred which had never been incurred before, and the Parish Councillors would have the right to tax their neighbours. Surely Parliament ought to say that those who taxed their neighbours should feel the tax themselves. By this Bill, however, the Parish Councils would incur expenditure to which the Councillors would not themselves contribute. What would be the inevitable result if the House dill not face the difficulty and the facts and throw the burden of the rates on the occupiers throughout the whole district? If the Bill was passed in its present form, and there was a considerable rise in local rates, many hundreds of owners in the country would immediately raise the rents.

MR. CYRIL DODD

It will be necessary in that case to establish a Land Court.

* MR. W. LONG

said, a Land Court would not apply to the case he was dealing with. The hon. and learned Gentleman was such a partisan that he could not separate the ownership of cottages from the ownership of land. The hon. Member should ascertain in his own constituency what was the proportion of cottages owned by the agricultural landlords, and what was the proportion owned by small occupiers who owned no land at all. What, then, was the good of a Land Court to fix the rent of houses? The suggestion of the hon. Member was so ridiculous as to be hardly worth discussion. It simply showed that the object of some hon. Members was not the encouragement and the assistance of the agricultural labourer, but the injury and even the robbery of the landlord. What was the issue the House was now asked to decide? It was whether the rates should fall on those who would be called on to elect the Councils, or whether those who would have the right to elect the Councils should have no knowledge whatever of an increase or fall in the rates. He confessed he did not know why the Government should resist the proposal. They had Board a great deal about trusting the people while the Bill had been under consideration. If the Government would trust the people, why should they object to this responsibility being thrown on them? Did they believe that the rates would be raised under the Bill? If they did, he would ask them for whose benefit would the rise take place? Did they believe that the rales would be raised for the benefit of the landlord or of the tenant farmer? The rates of a locality could only be raised for the benefit of the labourers and the smaller occupiers; and why, therefore, should they not bear their fair share of the increase? It was said that his Amendment would be impossible in urban districts. He admitted it. But was the difficulty an insuperable one of distinguishing between the urban and the rural districts? He would go further, and say that in the case of urban districts he would oppose an Amendment of this kind, because, owing to the constant migration of the population from one part to another, there was great waste and loss to the rates and consequent increase of expenditure; but in the rural districts, where there was not much migration, there would be no difficulty in collecting the rates. With regard to the proposal embodied in this Amendment, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that it would mean a 6d. rate thrown on the labourer, and that it probably would amount to 1s. or 1s. 6d. The right hon. Gentleman had said—"Fancy asking the labourer to pay 1s. or 1s. 6d. for this Bill!" Well, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board knew the value of his own Bill, and was in a better position to form an idea as to whether the labourer he was about to enfranchise would pay 1s. 6d. for the Bill. But that was not the question. The question was this—they were going to enfranchise the labourers of the country, and to give them powers, which they had not hitherto possessed, of deriving benefit from the expenditure of money. Were they going to lay on them the natural obligation of sharing the burden they were going to increase? Were they going to give these people such powers, and throw on others the burden? The issue was a simple one, and he hoped and trusted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be able, if not to accept the Amendment, at all events to meet it by a more sympathetic aud—if he might say it without offence—more practical expression of opinion than he gave them last time the question was before the House. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that amongst the owners and occupiers and the agricultural labourers in the rural districts there was a very strong feeling that they should be allowed to be the actual controllers of the expenditure. To his mind it was an insult to the labourers, and a mistake in the interests of the Bill, to enable owners and large occupiers to say to the labourers—"It is all very well for you to vote for this or that proposal, but you are going to derive the benefit, while we are going to pay for it." By letting each man feel that his vote was equal to that of his neighbour, and that he would bear his share, however small it might be, of the burden of taxation, the Government would be conferring on the rural population a power which would be a reality instead of a sham. He begged to move his Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 12, line 22, after the word "fund," to insert, as a new Sub-section, the words,—"(5) The provisions of Section 4 of 'The Poor Bate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869,' shall not apply to any rate levied for defraying the expenses of a Parish Council or a parish meeting, whether separately or together with other expenses."—(Mr. W. Long.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, this Amendment dealt with the whole poor rate. ["No, no!"] Yes; but he would deal with the simple issue the hon. Gentleman had raised in his speech.

MR. W. LONG

said, that the words of the Amendment were— Shall not apply to any rate levied for defraying the expenses of a Parish Council.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would not argue the point, but would take the simple issue that no rate levied under the Bill for the expenses of a Parish Council or parish meeting was to be subjected to the principle of com- pounding. He had dealt with the question at great length on the Committee stage. He had listened very attentively to the hon. Gentleman, but could not understand what his allegation was. At the commencement he seemed to imply that the burden of these rates would not fall on the occupier at all. He had said that at the proper time he would be prepared to argue the question; but before he finished the hon. Member said the effect of the legislation would be to raise the rates, and that one of the effects which would follow would be the unpopularity of the Bill among labourers on account of its increasing the rents. He (Mr. Fowler) did not propose to argue that question. His own belief was—and he had never shrunk from saying so—that where a rate was levied upon a landlord in respect of the the property let, the tenant in some shape or other and to some extent paid a portion of the rate in his rent. This arrangement was made not in the interest of the landlord or tenant, but exclusively in the interest of the rating authority and for the purpose of levying the rates and securing the public from loss. When the hon. Member said that this Amendment was an arrangement which could not be entertained in connection with urban districts, he seemed to forget that when the Legislature first dealt with the question it dealt with it in reference to urban rates and not rural rates. Under the Act of 1850 the landlord was allowed a deduction of 25 per cent.; but under the Act of 1869, which was passed by the right hon. Member for the St. George's Division, the allowance was reduced to 15 per cent. The advantages of the system wore that it protected against bad debts, promoted the collection of the rate, and insured its payment all the year round, whether the property was occupied or not. The only ground on which the principle could be defended was that it was a distinct gain to the rate collecting Authority. There was no other ground on which this arrangement could be defended, except the financial one. He had never attempted to put it on any other ground, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. George's Division, by whom the Act of 1869 authorising compounding was passed, had never attempted to put it on any other ground. In 1867 the Government attempted to abolish this system; they listened to the cry that the proper thing was to make everyone pay his own rate, but after two years they were obliged to repeal their legislation. The thing was so impracticable that they were bound to repeal it. What was the practical difficulty? It was the collection from tenants who were changing their premises of rates which were levied once in six mouths, and loss in that respect occurred in the country districts as well as in the towns. The hon. Member's objection was that these people ought to know what they were paying. The answer to that was the test of experience. The principle of composition was the same, whether in Birmingham or in some small country village. The principle of compounding was that the owner of the property had to pay the rate, and that the rate was somehow or other charged to the tenant. But the hon. Gentleman's argument was that this involved injustice, and that those who called the tune ought to pay the piper. The principle, if it was sound in urban districts, should be equally sound in rural districts. One hon. Member had said that a large town, where there was an overwhelming number of compound householders on the Register, was the place where the rates were most carefully watched. He know that the Leader of the Opposition had always maintained that in towns the compounder felt the payment of the rates immediately, and that it fell upon him very rapidly in the shape of rent if the rates were raised. That was not his own experience in respect of small properties in towns, for he found that the process was very slow. If the right hon. Gentleman had the misfortune to be the owner of a considerable amount of small property in a large town, he would know that there was about the same difficulty in raising rents on that property as there was in the country. He (Mr. Fowler) was speaking with some personal knowledge of the fact that where rates were increased rapidly the burden fell to a great extent on the landlord, and it was some time before he was able to recoup himself. But that did not produce a tendency in the public mind to extravagance. They had the test of the urban districts—of the large towns. They had it north, south, east, and west. The universal experience was that the less wealthy the ratepayer was the more economical was the expenditure of the Local Authority, and there was no reason to think that that principle would not operate in rural localities. The people would not be ignorant—they would know more accurately the exact amount to be raised, and the manner in which it was spent, than they did in large towns, not only on account of the small area, but of their familiarity with the various matters upon which the money was spent. But they had introduced into the Bill provisions under which the parish meeting would practically control the rating. They had said that the tax should not be raised beyond a certain extent without the consent of the parish meeting, so that the tendency would be to economy and not extravagance. But this was so far as the present Bill was concerned. If the Opposition thought that compounding was altogether unsound and indefensible, and that all local taxation should be direct, personal, and felt by each ratepayer, do not let them attack this the smallest rate that would be levied for the purpose of trying an experiment, but let them deal with the poor rate as a whole, and they would cover all the rates to be levied under this Bill. He would not argue the general question, as they were all anxious to finish this stage of the Bill as soon as they could. This matter had been fully dealt with on the Committee stage. He had no further or better arguments to offer than he had used over and over again in Committee. He would only say that the Government could not recede from the position they had already taken up, which was that there was no such distinction between compounding in towns and compounding in the country as would justify the difference it was proposed to make.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that on the present occasion the House is anxious to finish as soon as it decently can other very important business in which it is engaged, and for that reason, if for no other, it behoves us to compress our arguments into the briefest possible space. But I am bound to say that, in my judgment, the question we are now discussing, in a thin House, in the early days of January, after an 11 months' sitting, is the most important which has come before us, or can come before us, in connection with the extension of local government in England. Unfortunately for myself I was not able to be present when the question was discussed in Committee, and I feel certain that I should not be doing my duty if I did not take this opportunity of expressing my own sense of the enormous responsibility which will rest upon this House in deliberately choosing to throw the burden of carrying out this Bill upon a very small number of individuals, while at the same time giving the power of managing the affairs of the rural parishes to the mass of the population who have no direct concern with the payment of rates. I am very unwilling to enter upon any unnecessary controversy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. If I desired to embitter the Debate with an exchange of personalities, I should be inclined to ask how it comes about that the right hon. Gentleman now maintains that the rate falls upon the occupier, while in his speeches in the country he affirmed that contributions from the Imperial Exchequer go straight into the pocket of the landlord. These are antagonistic propositions which on another occasion I might have occupied a few moments in contrasting together; but it is unnecessary on the present occasion to make any special attack on the right hon. Gentleman. My inclination is rather the other way. In the speech he has made to-night he appears to have endeavoured to deal with this matter in a practical spirit, and has not endeavoured to rely on the argument that we cannot make all the voters under the Bill ratepayers, because a large number of them are service-franchise voters or owners who pay no direct rates. When it suits hon. Gentlemen opposite they take the benefit of the operation of the rates, and when it suits them they refuse to recognise it. But let me examine what the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are. The right hon. Gentleman contended broadly that, whatever was the nature of the tenure, the occupier directly or indirectly felf the burden of local taxation. The right hon. Gentleman must draw his experience from urban, and not from rural, districts. From decade to decade, on the estates of the great improving landlords, cottages have been improving in character, and becoming more costly, but rents have not risen in proportion. These cottages have not been built for profit, and rents are fixed in accordance with the traditions of the neighbourhood, and in proportion to or as representing a percentage on the cost. Bents do not increase under the ordinary operation of supply and demand, or simply because rates have risen. The result has been that the amount of rates in a parish has never come before the labourers as a practical question; it has never been part of their yearly budget estimate. When I heard the hon. Member for Essex suggest that the remedy for the rise in rents was a Land Court I could not help reflecting that if the Court estimated the value on the cost of building and allowed 6 or 7 per cent, interest the result would be a very heavy rise in rents in enormous districts of the country. If there be this vital distinction between the case of the country and the case of the towns, how is it met? What arguments have we heard against it? None, except arguments drawn from urban districts. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the difficulty of collecting the rates in the small urban districts is such that if you abolish the compound householder you will practically raise the rates by 15 or 20 or even 50 per cent. Very well; that may be the case. We do not at all desire, however, to touch the compounding system in the urban districts, partly because we admit that the practical objections to it are of a very serious character, and partly because we feel that it is far less necessary in those districts than it is in the rural districts, for the reason I have indicated—namely, that the tenant in an urban district has constantly before his eyes the close connection there is between the rise of rents and the rise of rates. I ask the Government what grounds they have for supposing that any such difficulties exist in the rural parishes as exist in urban districts? The House has heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Is there a single man present who would not gather from that speech that the practical difficulties in the way of abolishing compounding in the rural districts are such that no rural district would submit to them? Well, Sir, at this moment there are countless rural districts which have deliberately elected that they will not have compounding, and in which at this moment all the rates, including the poor rates, are collected not from the owner, but from the occupier. If the right hon. Gentleman appeals to experience, may not I appeal to experience also? If he says, and says truly, that in the urban districts it is impossible to collect the rates without conpounding, and that experience has demonstrated it, may not I say that in the rural districts it is possible to abolish compounding, and that experience has demonstrated it? We have the facts before us, and I think that with the practical possibility of the system we recommend, demonstrated by the experience which is now being obtained before our very eyes, it is too much for the Government to come down and say that the practical objections to our plan are overwhelming. If it be demonstrated that the practical objections to our plan are not overwhelming, are not the arguments in favour of that plan of themselves of a kind which ought to command the assent of every man who now listens to me? Remember that the smaller you make your area the more possible it is to bring home to the individual the responsibility be bears, and, further, that the more direct the personal as distinguished from the communal benefit which a man derives from the rates, the more necessary it is to bring home to him the connection between increased rates and increased burdens on himself. Sir, from both these points of view the system the Government are setting up requires, more than any other system which has ever been set up in this country, that they should make a man feel the direct responsibility he has in his local finance. I will take for the purpose of illustration the Allotment Clause of this Bill. That clause differs from most of the other provisions of the Bill from the fact that the benefit derived from it is not a general or communal, but a personal and individual, benefit. It is not like a question of general drainage or water supply. It is a question of A or B getting a certain amount of land at a certain rent. I would earnestly put it to the House whether it is fair or safe to say to a Parish Council which has to administer an Allotments Act, and which at the same time obtains such great powers, the maladministration of which will throw on the ratepayers such enormous responsibility as to say to them that 90 per cent, of their own constituents shall be excused from the burdens that may be thereby imposed? Under this Hill, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Long) most powerfully observed earlier this evening, you hire laud compulsorily from an unwilling landlord, and you let it at a rent which no doubt ought to safeguard the ratepayer to an allotment holder in the village; but if the allotment holder does not pay his rent, or if the Parish Council is unable to let the allotment, a heavy loss must of course fall on the ratepayer. Who will pay for that loss? It will not be those who desire to have or who have allotments; it will not be the class whom we desire to benefit by allotments, but it will be the class who will be injured, if there be any injury, by the compulsory appropriation of their land. I do not believe that a man on that side of the House will get up and say that system is fair. He may ride off on generalities and say our system is impracticable or that there must be injustice and that this injustice is more tolerable than any other injustice; but I cannot imagine that any man will get up and say that it is fair first to take land from a man against his will, and to improve it against his will, and then to throw the cost upon the rates, and make him pay the whole of those rates. That is not fair, but that is the system of your Bill. I almost regret having been obliged to use this illustration, because it makes it look as if I regarded the whole of this question as a question between the owners on the one side and the rural labourers on the other. I assure the House that it is not the case. I regard it from a much larger point of view, and I say that if the Local Government Bill is wrecked the reef on which it will strike will be the financial reef. If it is found that we cannot carry out this great experiment it will be because our finance fails, and the one thing we are bound to see to is that our finance should succeed. I ask hon. Members whether, from their general knowledge of human affairs in every class, it is not wise to make the individuals who are extravagant pay for their extravagance? That is all we ask. Extravagance and maladministration are your dangers. You must bring home to every man to whom you give these great responsibilities the fact that not merely in his corporate, but in his individual, capacity he will suffer from the maladministration of the affairs of the community which he is called upon to govern. Without that I confess I look forward with very grave apprehension to the working of your Hill. Admit this Amendment, and I shall look with perfect confidence to the use of every power you are giving to the rural labourer; and I believe that if the time should come when these powers will be very largely increased, there is scarcely any person now living to whom you could not under such circumstances safely trust the management of local affairs. If, owing to an undue regard for small difficulties, you refuse this Amendment, then every time I you desire to add to the power of your Parish Council this question will arise before you—imminent, menacing, instant; and I cannot believe that the Government will have deserved the success of their own measure unless they consent to take practical means of making that measure succeed by adopting principles which we do not advocate now for the first time, but which for generations have been the common property of every community that has practised self-govern-merit, and which have been held from; time immemorial by both sides of the House and both Parties in the State.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, that there were some practical objections to the proposal now made to the House which were additional to those urged on the two occasions on which the subject was fully debated in Committee. The distinction which had been drawn between rural and urban parishes was one which could not be permanently maintained. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had said there were countless rural districts where the compounding system was not in force at the present time. "Countless" was a very strong word. He (Sir C. Dilke) had tried to find out what were the facts in many parishes, mainly in Surrey, but also in Gloucester and other counties, and he had been able to find very few parishes where there was no compounding. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the distinctions between urban and rural districts was purely formal. There were vast urban communities which were treated by the Bill as rural, whilst there were many absolutely rural places which would, not have Parish Councils or parish meetings. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to retain compounding for purely rural but technically urban places, but to abolish it in places which were really urban but technically rural. Take the allotments test. He knew of two parishes existing side by side which had between them an urban population of 24,000, but which were technically rural, and he knew of two other parishes which were technically urban, one having 78 and the other 58 inhabited houses. How could the principle of the Amendment be applied in these cases? How could the House say that in one of these cases the parishes might have compounding if they liked, while in the other, whether they liked it or not, there was to be no compounding? It seemed to him that after the Debates that had already taken place on this subject the House was bound to confirm the decision it had already arrived at, and to leave it to the local option of the district to say whether compounding should continue or not.

* MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon)

wished to say why he supported the Government on this clause. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had performed part of his task for him by answering the speech of his Colleague (MR. Long) with regard to the question of rents. The interruption he had indulged in during the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Long) had been drawn from him by the supposition that the hon. Member was saying that if the clause came into operation the rents would be raised in country districts. He felt certain that the landlords of England would not wish for a moment to threaten that they would raise their rents if the Bill passed, and what was more the rents would not be raised. He was satisfied that he was right in that view, because the Leader of the Opposition had said that which he (Mr. Dodd) knew was true in large districts of the country—namely, that the cottages were in many cases not built for direct profit, but for indirect profit, and in order to get the labourers to work on the hind.

* MR. W. LONG

The hon. Member has put into my mouth a statement I did not make. I especially limited my remarks to I lie small holders of a few cottages in country districts.

MR. DODD

said, in that case his Land Court vanished, just as the threat of the hon. Member had vanished, with the hundreds of landlords he spoke of.

MR. W. LONG

It was never made.

MR. DODD

went on to say that the hon. Member had been a little unfair to him in replying to his interruption, be-cause a Land Court could be applied to cottages as well as to laud. The argument that Land Courts must put on cottages a rent to pay interest on cost was shewn to he unsound by the action of the Courts in Ireland, the rent imposed paid no fair interest on the value of the land. The hon. Member had also been not quite fair to him in taunting him with being ignorant of the agricultural labourers. As a matter of fact, he was born and bred in a village. He knew a great deal about agricultural labourers. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the West Derby Division in his new view of the rights of man. The hon. Member regarded it as one of the rights of man to pay rates directly. If the labourer did not pay his rates personally, the hon. Member said be was not treated as a human being. If that was one of the rights of man he himself, and he believed most Members, would like to he relieved of such a right. All he could say on behalf of the agricultural labourers who did so much to return him to Parliament was that they did not desire to be treated in the manner which the hon. Member chose to describe as "treated like human beings."

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

As several allusions have been made to the fact that I was one of those responsible for introducing the principle of compounding, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on the subject. The answers given to the speeches delivered have hinged mainly on the administrative difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean—the difficulty in drawing a dis- tinction between urban and rural districts; and though the President of the Board of Trade has taken rather a broader line, he also has confessed to that difficulty. The question is, Does the House intend to give more weight to the administrative difficulty than to what may be called the social and political advantages? Compounding is, from an administrative point of view, a most advantageous system. I agree with the President of the Local Government Board that if we had only to consider the amount to be collected, compounding is the best means of arriving at a satisfactory result; but let me remind the House that at the time that the principle of compounding was extended, the powers that were given to those who did not pay the rates were not like the powers to be conferred by the present Bill. My right hon. Friend the Loader of the Opposition has alluded to the fact that the nearer the interest conies home to the particular person, and the smaller the area, the more dangerous it is to give effect to the compounding principle. Now, when we are going to give powers like these to the agricultural labourer, with regard to the disposal of the proceeds of the rates, it would be scarcely fair to bring forward the administrative argument which used to be advanced 24 or 25 years ago. While I agree, after the experience we have bad, from a purely financial point of view, that compounding has been a benefit, I wish to repeat that doubts have been thrown upon the wisdom of compounding from a social point of view, because it was no longer apparent that those who are voting the money contribute to the funds they are disposing of. The President of the Local Government Board maintained—and I was amused at it—that the agricultural labourer would feel any increase of the rates—that waste would react upon him and his class. It would be by a very recondite process that that could be brought homo to them. In the earlier portion of the evening we were told that under a particular form of franchise the labourer would not know how to vote, and to whom to give the preference; yet now we are informed that he will appreciate the recondite influence of an increase of rates, and will see that such an increase must ultimately add to his rent. I think it is a most dangerous principle to give small localities a power over the proceeds of rates which the administrators of the money do not contribute to. Further than that, it is not merely a question whether the labourer contributes to the rates, but whether he sees and feels that he does so, and it would astound me to learn that an agricultural labourer was able to solve the problem of the direct and indirect result of the increase of rates on rent. I simply rose, however, to protest against any connection being traced between the proposals of the Bill and the action taken 20 years ago.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 128—(Division List, No. 425.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 11, page 12, line 26, leave out "first-mentioned purpose," and insert "expenses of the Council or meeting, and the proportion (if any) levied for the purpose of any of the adoptive Acts. Clause 12, page 12, line 27, leave out "may. Line 37, leave out "borrow," and insert "may. Line 38, after "Board," insert "borrow. Clause 13, page 13, line 24, after "stopping," insert "in whole or in part. Line 25, after "rural parish and," insert "the consent of the Parish Council shall be required. Line 36, after "footpaths," insert "within their parish. Line 37, after "public road," leave out "within their parish. Clause 14, page 14, line 5, after "purpose," insert "connected with a rural parish. Lines 5 and 6, leave out "connected with a rural parish. Line 7, after "Council of the parish," insert "or to persons appointed by that Council.

MR. COURTNEY

moved— In page 14, line 12, after the word "charity," to insert the words "the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish. The object of the Amendment was to clear up a point which was a little obscure. The definition of a parochial charity, that it was a charity the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, had been inserted in Sub-section (3) of Clause 14, and his object was to have it inserted also in Sub-section (2) of the clause, where, by general consent, it was needed in the interest of consistency. He had not been present when the Definition Clause of Clause 62 was con- sidered in Committee; but he found that it contaiaed a definition of "parochial charity," which differed very materially from the definition in Sub-section (3) of Clause 14. The definition in Clause 62 was that a parochial charity was a charity the benefits of which were confined to the inhabitants of a single parish, or to the inhabitants of "not more than five neighbouring parishes." That showed that the definition of "parochial charity" in the Bill was not consistent, and as the matter might lead to considerable difficulty he thought it ought to lie cleared up.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, line 12, after the word "charity," to insert the words "the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that if his right hon. Friend had been present when Clause 62 was being discussed he would have had a full and complete answer to his Amendment. They did not attempt in Clause 14 to define a parochial charity, and the words to which his right hon. Friend had referred were inserted in Clause 14 in order to limit for that particular clause the meaning of "parochial charity." It was clearly understood at the time that a full arid complete definition of "parochial charity" would be inserted in the Interpretation Clause, or Clause 62, and that had been done accordingly.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

moved to insert, at the end of line 13 of the clause, after "persons," the words "qualified to be elective Councillors for the parish." His object was to assimilate Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the clause on the qualification of the persons to be appointed trustees of parochial charities. Subsection (3) enacted that the trustees must be either Councillors, or persons qualified to be elected as Councillors. There was no such limitation in Subsection (2), and he thought it ought to be inserted, because he could not see why persons should be appointed trustees in place of Churchwardens and Overseers who were not qualified to be elected Councillors of the parish.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, line 13, after the word "persons," to insert the words "qualified to be elective Councillors for the parish."—(Sir M. Hichs-Beach.)

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

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that vehement opposition had been offered to Sub-section (3) by hon. Members on the other side of the House; successive attempts had been made to modify the operation of the clause, and by way of concession, and concession only, the Government had admitted into Sub-section (3) the words which the right hon. Baronet now proposed to insert in Sub-section (2.) It was not the intention of the Government to go further in the matter, and they could not, therefore, accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 14, line 31, at end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "and (a) Where by reason of the addition hereby directed the number of trustees is. in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners, too large, having regard to the fund to be administered, to the number of persons available as trustees, and to all the circumstances of the ease, they may by Order suspend the filling of future vacancies among the trustees so as to reduce their number without preventing the persons elected or appointed as aforesaid being a majority: and (b) The Charity Commissioners may by General Order regulate the mode of carrying this sub-section into effect."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

asked what was intended by this Amendment. It gave such general powers to the Charity Commissioners that they might, if they chose, gradually extinguish all the original trustees of a charity by suspending the filling up of vacancies. If that was intended, it was a large extension of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby, which was itself an extension of the original Bill.

SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the Amendment had been framed for the purpose of fulfilling the pledge which the Government gave to modify, as far as possible, the difficulty which might arise from an unwieldy number of trustees. There was no idea of interfering with the existing trustees. The Government had tried to devise a painless method—if he might use the expression—of reducing the number of trustees where it had been greatly increased by the principal provision of Clause 3, which enacted that the elective trustees must be in a clear majority, and the Amendment was the result of their effort.

SIR J. GORST

said, that the Government had perhaps done the best they could under the circumstances, but this Amendment would not prevent the inconvenience to which the Solicitor General had alluded. The number of trustees in many cases would, in the first instance, be increased to an absurd figure—in one case which he had in his mind the trustees of an almshouse would be increased from 12 to 25—and these ridiculous bodies would only by slow degrees be reduced to reasonable proportions.

Question put, and agreed to.

^*On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 14, page 14, line 38, leave out from "affects," to "shall," in line 39, and insert "a rural parish. Page 15, lines 1 and 2, leave out "Act 23 and 24 Vict., c. 136," and insert "Charitable Trusts Act, 1860. Line 2, leave out "that Council," and insert "the Council of the parish, or the parish meeting as the ease may be. Line 4, after "and," insert "in the ease of a Council. Line 13, before "parish," insert Parish Council, or where there is no Parish Council the. Line 19, after "number," insert "to be determined by lot. Line 23, after "trustees," insert "except so far as the appointment is transferred from the Vestry.

On Motion of Sir R. Webster, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 15, line 25, after "founded," insert "before the passing of this Act.

On Motion of Mr H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 15, page 15, line 33, after "Acts," insert "and thereupon those Acts shall apply as if the Parish Council were a Parochial Committee. Line 33, leave out "appoints," and insert "appoint. Line 35, after "shall," insert "where there is a Parish Council. Line 36, leave out "Parish Councillors," and insert "members of the Parish Council. Clause 16, page 15, line 37, leave out "resolves," and insert "resolve. Page 16, line 11, after Sub-section (1), insert—"(2) Upon any complaint under this section the County Council may, instead of resolving that the duties and powers of the Rural District Council he transferred to them, make such an order as is mentioned in Section 299 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,'and may appoint a person to perform the duty, and upon such appointment Sections 299 to 302 of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' shall apply with the substitution of the County Council for the Local Government Board. Clause 17, page 16, line 28, leave out "Acts," and insert "Act. Line 29, leave out "it," and insert "they. Page 17, line 11, after "parish," insert "and all documents directed by law to be kept therewith. Line 19, leave out "parish books," and insert "public books, writings, papers. Line 20, after "Council," insert "or parish meeting. Clause 18, page 17, line 32, after "electing." insert "parish. Line 35, before "Councillors," insert "parish. Amendment proposed, at end of last, Amendment, In page 17, line 35, to insert the words "and such wards shall be so divided that no ward shall be entitled to less than three or more than six Councillors."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that the question raised by the Amendment would be considered in connection with a further Amendment which stood lower down on the Paper in the name of his right hon. Friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 18, page 17, line 35, at end, insert—"In the division of a parish into wards regard shall be had to the population according to the last published Census for the time being, and to the evidence of any considerable change of population since that Census, and to area and to the distribution and pursuits of the population, and to all the circumstances of the case. Page 18, line 1, leave out from "shall," to "for," in line 2, and insert "be a separate election of Parish Councillors. Clause 19, page 18, line 14, leave out from "number," to "and," in line 16, and insert "for any purposes which, in the opinion of the parish meeting, would be better regulated and managed by means of such a committee. Line 18, leave out "exerciseable by," and insert "duties and liabilities of. Line 21, leave out "exerciseable by," and insert "transferred to.

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

moved, in page 18, lines 25 and 26, to leave out "in the place of Overseers and Churchwardens." The effect of the Amendment would be to place small parishes which had not Parish Councils but parish meetings in the same position with respect to the appointment of trustees for the administration of their charities as parishes which had Parish Councils. It would be unfair that the smaller parishes should not, like the larger parishes, have their charities administered by a popular body. He would not say anything further in support of the Amendment if the Government intimated that they would accept it.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 18, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words "in the place of Overseers and Churchwardens."—(Mr. W. Allen.)

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

* SIR F. S. POWELL

said, that this Amendment was too great an extension of the power of parish meetings. According to his interpretation of it any number of trustees might be appointed, and thus destroy the balance of a trust and wholly alter its character.

SIR J. RIGBY

The only effect of the Amendment will be to place the parish meeting where there is no Parish Council in the same position as the Parish Council. That is the course we have adopted throughout the Bill, and it was only through an oversight that we omitted it here. It is on that ground that we accept the proposal of my hon. Friend.

SIR M. HICKS-BEACH

This is a very material alteration of the clause. The clause as it stands now was framed after considerable discussion, and I do not think it is fair of the Government to make such an alteration at this stage of the Bill. I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the Bill as it stands, and not to make this extension, which is felt to be most objectionable by every gentleman on this side of the House.

SIR J. GORST

said, that in the matter of the appointment of trustees of charity there was a great difference between parish meetings and Parish Councils. The Parish Council was a permanent body and would remain responsible for what they might do, whereas the parish meeting was a fluctuating body changing from time to time, and the subsequent parish meeting might consist of entirely different people from those which appointed the trustees. The appointment of a majority of the trustees by a fluctuating popular body would be most objectionable.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The object of the Government is to place the parish meeting in all respects in the same position as the Parish Council; but if that is regarded as a serious alteration by gen-men opposite, and that it is not desirable that it should he adopted at this stage of the Bill, we withdraw the Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer forgot that it was intimated by the President of the Local Government Board to his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that the Government would accept it, and it was rather hard on his hon. Friend that he could not now submit the arguments he was then prepared to offer and that he should have been thrown over.

SIR W. HARCOURT

It is half-past 11 o'clock.

MR. LABOUCHERE

said, it was half-past 11, but gentlemen opposite could not go on talking about these questions for hours. They were simply opposing for the sake of opposition. [Cries of "No!"] Yes, that was so; hon. Gentlemen opposite were exceedingly anxious for the Government to make all sorts of concessions to themselves; they called that a legitimate compromise, and the only way of carrying on the business of the House; but when the Government agreed to a sound and reasonable proposition from that side of the House, then up jumped hon. Gentlemen opposite, one after the other, and declared it was an alteration in the Bill. He really thought that his hon. Friend must go to a Division—he was speaking more for the hon. Member than for himself, because his hon. Friend could not speak again—as he felt he should not be doing justice to his constituents if he did not use his utmost endeavours to induce the Government to stand by what he really thought was a specific pledge by his right hon. Friend.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had stated that the Government would accept the Amendment. When the clause was under discussion in Committee, after the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member Rugby (Mr. Cobb), his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. W. Allen) pointed out that the clause ought to be altered so as to extend it to the parish meeting, and at his (Mr. Fowler's) request he did not move the Amendment, as they were anxious to get on with the business, the hon. Member being told that he would have an opportunity of moving it on Report. These were the circumstances of the case. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there was an understanding they were not to effect anything like a change in the Bill; but he told them frankly how the circumstances occurred, and he would appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they did not consider it a fair concession? The Committee having thought fit to extend the principle to the Parish Council, it should equally be extended to the parish meeting. He did certainly ask his hon. Friend to move this on Report.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, they regarded it as a very great extension of the Bill. They regarded the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby as a great extension, but they understood that only to apply to cases where there was a Parish Council, and they did not for a moment think it was to he applied to a parish meeting, or they would have resisted the Amendment more strongly than they did. Whatever argument there was in favour of extending it to Parish Councils, they did not think it was to apply to a parish meeting. For his own part, he hoped the Government would stick to their guns, and not further extend the concession made to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Cobb).

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

quite agreed with the last speaker that they should stick to their guns on that side of the House; therefore, he thought the Government would be quite right in agreeing to the principle they had laid down, and accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend. Even this evening they had decided that the Parish Council was not to spend more than a certain amount without the consent of the parish meeting; therefore, it was absurd now to express this distrust of the parish meeting. In ordinary fairness they should extend what they gave to the Parish Council to the parish meeting.

* MR. W. LONG

said, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had misunderstood the whole matter, as it had nothing on earth to do with distrust of the parish meeting. The parish meeting was given the right of control over certain matters, but that was totally different to what they were now discussing, which was the appointment of trustees by a Governing Body of the parish. Every one must be alive to the fact that a parish meeting was not so thoroughly a representative body as the Parish Council. When they came to elect trustees upon an open charity the parish meeting was in a very different position to the Parish Council. From whatever point of view they might approach the question of popular control of these charities there could be no doubt that it was a departure from the principle hitherto laid down, and was a departure from the final condition on which Clause 13 was passed. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had their majorities and had the power to pass any Amendment; but if they were to facilitate the passage of this Bill through Report, it could only be done on the lines mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—on a principle of give and take; and hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be able to carry all they wanted, in the time they proposed to give to the Bill, unless they allowed the Opposition some opportunity of expressing their opinion as to the changes made without warning to them. The Opposition regarded this as an extension of the Bill, and under the circumstances, he hoped—in fact, he felt perfectly certain—the Government would adhere to the decision they had expressed to the House through the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not think it necessary to express their opinion of independence against the decision of their own Leaders, but would allow the Amendment to be withdrawn in order to allow their own Bill to pass rapidly.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

said, they did not object to hon. Gentlemen opposite expressing their opinions, but what they asked was that when the hon. Gentleman talked about give and take there should be a little give on the other side of the House, and not all take. Even this evening it had been all give on that side of the House, and all take on the other. They objected very much to that system, and ought to ask that the Government should let them understand exactly where they were. One right hon. Gentleman said he would accept, and another one got up and said, "No, we will not," and they, as humble followers of the Government, objected to that, and wanted the Government to stand to their guns. They had, up to now, got precious little. When they had got their Leaders to adopt their views on some important point, they found they were opposed by the other side and thrown over, and that was treatment they did not propose to submit to.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

said, it appeared to him this Amendment raised a considerable question; it was not a mere question of what the words were, but the question they had to settle was whether this House was to be led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Cony-beare).

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 71.—(Division List, No. 426.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In Clause 19, page 18, line 32, after "mortmain," insert "but shall in all respects act in manner directed by the parish meeting, and the acts of such body corporate shall be executed under the hands, or if an instrument under seal is required under the hands and seals, of the said Chairman and Overseers. The legal interest in all property which under this Act would, if there were a Parish Council, be vested on the appointed day in the Parish Council shall vest in the said body corporate of the Chairman and Overseers of the parish, subject to all trusts and liabilities affecting the same, and all persons concerned shall make and concur in making such transfers (if any) as are requisite to give effect to this enactment. Page 19, line 2, leave out "including," and insert "when added to. Clause 20, page 19, line 19, after "union," insert "or has during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election resided in the union. Line 21, leave out from "borough" to "and," in line 23. Line 2s, after "wards," insert "for the election of Guardians.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he proposed to move the Amendment standing in his name, but he did not propose to take the judgment of the House upon it by a Division. He had already discussed the question this evening, but he felt so strongly upon it that he should move it.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, line 32, to leave out from the word "for" to the end of Sub-section (4) of Clause 20, and insert the words "one candidate only, but he may vote in the alternative for as many candidates as he pleases, by writing the figures 1, 2, 3, and so on opposite the names of those candidates in the order of his preference, and the results of the election shall be determined in the manner prescribed in the Third Schedule to this Act."—(Mr. Courtney.)

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

On Motion of Mr. Courtney, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Line 35, after "shall," insert "subject to the provisions of this Act. Line 36, leave out "subject to the provisions hereinafter contained.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

rose to move the following Amendment:— In page 19, line 38, after the words "three years," to insert the words "and according as the County Council, after ascertaining the views of the authority and parochial electors concerned shall in each ease decide, either all the Guardians shall retire together or. He said, they had now arrived at the clause on which they had several discussions during the Committee, on the last of which they had hoped they had arrived at a conclusion satisfactory to both sides of the House. The contention between them in Committee was raised on the 19th clause, and what was then the 23rd clause, and on the 35th clause, on the latter occasion by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), and the contention of the right hon. Gentleman was that the election of Guardians should be triennial, all the Members retiring together. On the last occasion on which they discussed it they understood that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board had agreed to a compromise that would be satisfactory, and he would just remind the right hon. Gentleman of what then passed. On that occasion his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean was supported by a number of gentlemen in various parts of the House who did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman or himself on political matters, and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, seeing the circumstances of the case, said— Very well, I will agree to a compromise, and that compromise shall be that, instead of making a cast-iron rule that all Boards of Guardians shall retire by annual thirds, I will make it that the County Council may retire, either the one or the other. Now, when they examined the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment they could not think be had carried out, in the sense that they understood it, the arrangement that was then come to by general consent in the Committee, and he would prove conclusively in one material point that that was the fact. At the present moment be thought he was correct in saying there were 207 Boards of Guardians which had deliberately chosen triennial elections, all the members retiring together. [Cries of "Agreed!"] Really hon. Members who cried "agreed" must understand it was not agreed, and their crying out would not make it agreed; on the contrary, they who had taken trouble over this Bill considered it a serious point, and they intended, not at too great length, but with sufficiency, to place it before the House and the Government. As he was saying, these Boards had come to the decision in favour of triennial elections after the expense of a poll of the inhabitants concerned. If the clause was carried in the form the right hon. Gentleman proposed the effect would be that from the moment the Bill became an Act the whole of these Boards would be placed in this position: that they would have to submit to retire by thirds.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the hon. Member was inaccurate in his figures, the number being 105, or less than one-sixth.

MR. STOREY

said, he would take the figures given him by the right hon. Gentleman, and in their case they would have to retire by thirds annually, unless they could induce the County Council to alter the arrangement; so that they were in this extraordinary position:—Here was a Bill that proposed to give local government to the districts; there were 105, or less than one-sixth of the parochial Boards of Guardians which had deliberately said, in a most public fashion, they preferred the triennial system—all retiring together, and yet his right hon. Friend proposed that that state of things should be put an end to, that they should come under the Bill whether they wished it or not. His Amendment, on the contrary, provided they should continue as they were until the County Council should have time to consider the question fully, and he did not propose in his Amendment to give the County Council power to ride roughshod over the opinions of the district. In his own district of Sunderland they had deliberately chosen the triennial system, and he should not like the County Council of Sunderland to say bluntly they should alter the plan whether the inhabitants wished it or not. He said that no action ought to be taken by the County Council until they had ascertained the views and desires of the population concerned in the matter.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

Order, order!

It being Midnight, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.