CONSIDERATION.

HC Deb 12 January 1894 vol 20 cc1478-563

As amended, further considered.

Amendment proposed, In page 19, line 38, after the words "three years," to insert the words "according as the County Council, after ascertaining the views of the authority and parochial electors concerned shaft in each case decide, either all the Guardians shall retire altogether or."—(Mr. Storey.)

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

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, that since last night the President of the Local Government Board had placed an Amendment on the Paper which removed one of the objections he had. With respect to the other objection, the right hon. Gentleman preferred that the plan in the Bill should be by thirds, unless the County Council otherwise designed, but some of them preferred the plan of triennial election. However, everything was left to the County Council, and if they did not secure the triennial election it would be their own fault. Under the circumstances, he asked leave to withdraw the present Amendment.

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

said, the Government still held the opinion that the retirement of one-third annually was the best course, but they proposed to leave the matter to the County Councils to decide.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 2, after the word "Guardians," to insert the words—"Provided as follows:— (a) Where the County Council consider as respects any Union in their county that it would he expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of the whole of the Board of Guardians for the Union, they may direct that the members of the Boards of Guardians for that Union shall retire together on the 15th day of April in every third year, and such Order shall have full effect, and where a Union is in more than one county an Order may be made by the Joint Committee of the Councils of those counties. (b) Where at the passing of this Act the whole of the Guardians of any Union, in pursuance of an Order of the Local Government Board, retire together at the end of every third year they shall continue so to retire, unless their County Council, on the application of the Board of Guardians or of any District Council of a district wholly or partially within the Union, otherwise direct."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

* MR. DARLING (Deptford)

moved, in the first line of the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "County Council," in order to insert the words "Local Government Board." He said, the object of the Council of London might be very well divined by what one saw in newspapers which had their confidence as to what they meant to do if the powers contained in this provision were given to them. He saw no reason why the County Council should be placed in a position to interfere with the manner of election of Boards of Guardians. At present the Local Government Board had a very large power of ordering in what way elections should take place in regard to Boards of Guardians, and that was recognised in Sub-section (b) of this very Amendment. If there were any reason founded on inconvenience why the Guardians should not retire in a particular way it should be altered upon the order of a responsible Public Department, such as the Local Government Board, and not of a body which had no kind of judicial temper at all, and which was entirely a political body actuated by political motives. The right hon. Gentleman had given them no reason why the Local Government Board should not have the power.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 2, to leave out the words "County Council," and insert the words "Local Government Board."—(Mr. Darling.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'County Council' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

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

said, he did not think that the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment could have followed the Debates that had taken place on three occasions in Committee on this question. He seemed to think that the suggestion was made at the wish of the Government and of the Loudon County Council, and for a political reason, but the Debates had been entirely in the other sense. This change was pressed on the Government from the other side of the House, and it was a Conservative majority which formed the majority of the large minority which voted against the original Government proposal. All he (Sir C. Dilke) and his friends did was to support an immense body of opinion on the Conservative side; and when the Leader of the Opposition went into the Lobby in support of the view expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the main portion of his supporters went into the other Lobby. He was very sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman had introduced political considerations into this matter. No political considerations ever entered into the mind of any Member when discussing it in Committee. The whole question was discussed by the hon. Member for Liverpool and himself from the particular point of view of the difficulty of making the arrangement suggested by the Bill. When the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced political considerations, did he not remember that this applied to all the County Councils of England and Wales, the majority of which were Conservative? There were four sets of wards at the present moment, and the confusion they would get into if they forced the triennial method of election was so certain that he was convinced no County Council in England and Wales, when they came to recognise the difficulties, would impose this triennial mode of retirement on their constituents. The Local Government Board had expressed a view—a mistaken view, he thought—in favour of the retirement by thirds. It was an unworkable proposal, and he was perfectly certain that the County Council with a practical knowledge of the difficulties would not endorse the proposal, and yet the hon. Member wished to take this matter out of the hands of the County Council and leave the decision to the Local Government Board, who had already made up their mind on the question. He was convinced that it would be much better to leave the matter to the County Council.

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

said, he thought the right hon. Baronet had hardly done justice to the hon. and learned Member for Deptford nor given a perfectly accurate view of the general feeling of the House. To his mind the general feeling of the House had been expressed in the direction that there should be a retirement by thirds. [Sir C. W. DILKE: No, no.] There was a general feeling that that should be so, but the County Councils were to have a voice in order to rectify any difficulties that might occur. The right hon. Gentleman knows himself that with reference to London, the London County Council, whatever the circumstances of the case, would prevent in the whole of London the introduction of this system, not upon the ground of the difficulties in each particular case, but upon general grounds. They must look the matter in the face, and they must recognise that the London County Council did stand, to a certain extent, upon a different footing to other County Councils. In the first place, no other County Council exercised the powers of administration over so vast an area and population as in London; and, in the second place, the London County Council differed also from others in having a regular programme of operations. No one could read the language of the London County Council without coming to the conclusion that they were in favour—not upon any special administrative exigency, but upon the general view of having one universal election for London upon lines which they themselves would sketch out. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House already what he believed to be the view of the London County Council; therefore let it be distinctly understood that all the London Boards of Guardians had had their warning from the right hon. Gentleman. Whatever there might have been of good in the original clause—unless some Amendment was made—was excluded by the clause of the right hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition—as was proved by the very words which were read by the right hon. Gentleman—never contemplated such a result. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Guardians did not retire by thirds now. Yes, but then they were changing the whole tenure and mode of election of Guardians in London. They were now to be appointed upon a totally different footing, and it might be that it would be wise and desirable that there should be a retirement by thirds. Were they already to prohibit any possibility in London of the Boards of Guardians having these retirements by thirds, which he understood were approved of by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government? Unless some precaution was taken, however, the Government itself would preclude any Board of Guardians in London of availing itself of the method which the right hon. Gentleman himself said was the best. That surely could not be desirable. It would be rather invidious to make any distinction between the County Council in London and elsewhere. He should, on the whole, regret that, any such distinction should be drawn; but sooner than that London should be exposed to the certainty which had been explained by the right hon. Gentleman, he would suggest this compromise: The general feeling of the Committee and of the House was in favour of leaving this matter to the County Council. He would suggest that as regarded London they should make an exception, because they had been warned that unless that exception was made there was no hope of carrying out for London, with its 4,000,000 inhabitants, that which the Government themselves admitted might be a favourable operation. If there were any place in which retiring by thirds was desirable it was the Metropolis. As one of the Metropolitan Members he was bound to call attention strongly to this. London scarcely realised the enormous changes this Bill would make in the general administration of the Poor Law, and in the constitution of the Boards of Guardians. The Boards of Guardians might be swept away entirely by some wave of feeling from the London County Council. They had abolished the plural vote and had changed the tenure of the Boards of Guardians, and now, unless something was done, they were putting upon London practically a disability, because the County Council which declared its views in advance held a view which was contrary to that held by the Government. As a matter of justice to the people of London, he thought, at all events, they should have more option than was given them by the clause of the Government. In order that his hon. and learned Friend might get a clearer decision of the House upon the point he would advise him, after the expressions which had fallen from hon. Members, to withdraw the Amendment at this point, and have a Division upon the case of London, where, he hoped, they might have the support of a great many Members who wished to have this matter left with the County Councils in other places, but who considered that with regard to the County Council of London it stood on a different footing.

* SIR J. GROLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)

thought he had a right to say something on behalf of a London constituency which entertained a very different opinion to that expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. If there was a fault in this Bill it was that it over-centralised everything. It referred too many things to the Local Government Board. Day after day they had been considering when the Local Government Board was to be brought in, and how it was to control Local Bodies, to interfere with their elections and their other proceedings, and now the hon. and learned Member for Deptford, who ought to be in favour of individual liberty, went and asked the Local Government Board yet further to interfere, and the Local Government Board having expressed an opinion in favour of annual elections the hon. Member asked that the decision as to whether elections should be annual or not should be left with this authority. He declared that such a proposal was eminently unfair both to the country and to London. It was not quite right of the right hon. Gentleman to say that London was absolutely pledged to a particular course. Of course, the London County Council must know, as he knew from considerable experience in London, that on the whole the people of London did not care for a constant repetition of elections. They were sick of being called upon so often to express their opinion even on matters of great importance to themselves; and if they wished to have a good election in which the people should take a great interest and show what they did desire, they would have it as seldom as was reasonable under all the circumstances of the case. It was for that reason and no other that he said, even if nobody else in this House supported the view, he should assert that a triennial election was far better than an annual election of one-third. It ought also to be remembered that London had generally expressed no feeling of dissatisfaction with what had occurred year after year. This system, which was now to be optional, had been applied to London and had, on the whole, given satisfaction. They had triennial elections now in many cases, and why should they alter them? He believed that if they were to poll London to-day with regard to the two questions, whether they would like one-third to go out every year or that the whole should retire at the end of three years, they would find in every district—Liberal, Conservative, or Unionist, he did not care which it was—an overwhelming preponderance of opinion in favour of triennial elections. He thought hon. Members were not very wise in introducing into this discussion feelings which they appeared to entertain with regard to the London County Council. He had never appeared either as an advocate or an opponent of the London County Council, but he believed that that body would be as desirous to act in this matter in accordance with the opinions of their constituents as any County Council in any other part of the Kingdom. Why they should ascribe unfair motives to any particular Council he did not understand. As far as the Member for Deptford was concerned, he thought he would have done much better not to have introduced these political considerations in this connection. Nobody was fonder of politics in their place than he (Sir J. Goldsmid) was, but he said this was not a political matter. They ought, therefore, to decide it upon its merits, and not, as it were, upon this intrusion of a strange and altogether unsuitable subject. He trusted the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Amendment and that they should hear no more of it.

* SIR F. S. BOWELL (Wigan)

said, he did not wish to say a word on the London case, but, speaking of the country as a whole, he hoped the Government would retain the words leaving the power in the hands of the County Council. If they did they would have an authority which represented the ratepayers and knew the circumstances of the locality and the feelings of the population. The County Councils were the representatives of the districts and were far more competent—being on the spot—to decide this matter even than the Local Government Board with the aide staff at their command.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

observed that the question as lo whether the elections should be triennial or annual for one-third of the Guardians turned entirely on the question of machinery. Much embarrassment was caused by attempting to apply the same machinery to all parts of the country; and such an attempt must be the merest political I pedantry. Again, the proposal to make the Local Government Board determine how the elections were to be held throughout the length and breadth of the land was impossible; but why should not the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition be adopted? The Government principle of one-third retiring in turn would then be the basis of the plan. The County Council could in each case report to the Local Government Board as to the possibility or impossibility of carrying out the plan of partial retirement within their area. The plan could thus be carried out where it was practicable, and where the County Council declined the task of putting the necessary machinery in operation the Local Government Board could undertake the responsibility on the condition that they introduced no new ideas. In every thickly-populated district there was more danger of sudden gusts of popular emotion creating a complete revolution; and it was desirable to avoid that by providing that some nucleus should survive the storm. The object was secured by the retirement by thirds. Such a compromise would be in harmony with the feelings of the Committee.

MR. J. STUART (Shoreditch, Hoxton)

hoped that the President of the Local Government Board would adhere to his Amendment on the Paper. The right hon. Member for Bodmin seemed to have forgotten that for many years it had been the practice in London for the Guardians to retire all together; and so the dangers which the right hon. Gentleman feared might have occurred. But Poor Law administration in London compared favourably with that in any other part of the country. He hoped that in this matter London would not be differentiated from other parts of the country. There had been an attempt to fix a stigma on the London County Council, and to place it under the control of the Local Government Board, as if it were likely to act differently to other County Councils. The London County Council was no creator, but the creature, of public opinion in London just as in other cases. The whole discussion arose largely upon the condition of things in London. It was from the London point of view that there was first pressed upon the House the desirability of not having the universal plan first sketched out by the Government. The whole discussion went not upon the views of the London County Council—which were not known until the discussion had closed—but upon the particular cases brought forward of parish after parish and Union after Union where it was shown it would be impossible to put into operation any other scheme except the retirement of Boards as a whole and at the same time. It was shown how complicated was the system at the present time, and that in the very districts in London where wards were at present not complicated the principle of the Bill as it originally stood would produce hopeless complication, and make confusion worse confounded. Surely this was a matter upon which the London County Council were best able to express an opinion, for they were the, representatives of the people in London just as they were elsewhere, and knew the circumstances of the different wards and localities. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would stand firm to the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, and not treat London differently to the rest of the country.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was not desirable they should have a long Debate, seeing that this matter had been discussed twice, if not three times, on the Committee stage. They were now discussing an Amendment which he (Mr. Fowler) had proposed to carry out what he had gathered to be the views of both sides of the House. He did not pledge himself to accept specifically the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman threw it out casually, and suggested that some mode should be introduced to give an option. What he (Mr. Fowler) proposed then and what he proposed now was that the County Council should exercise this option. The hon. Member suggested the Local Government Board. He had himself great confidence in the Local Government Board, and he was not going to say any word which would reflect in any way on that body, but he did not think this was a question which they were exactly competent to decide. Take London out of the question, and say the County Council of Derbyshire or Lincolnshire sent up a request to the Local Government Board to do either one thing or the other. What evidence would the Local Government Board have to proceed upon which would justify them in reversing the decision of a Representative Body like that? He should not himself shrink from doing his duty as the head of the Local Government Board, but he should shrink from overruling the decision of the County Council in questions of that sort, which were purely local questions, and as to which they would know far better than any officer of the Local Government Board could know what were the desires and the requirements of the place. The strain of the argument for the Amendment appeared to be London, but the strain of the argument against the original Government scheme was also the case of London. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, in a singularly able speech on the previous occasion, showed to demonstration that the thing was impracticable in London without disturbing all existing electoral areas. Turning to the last Annual Report of the Local Government Board, he found, as regarded London, that the Guardians of Poplar, St. George's-in-the-East, Marylebone, and other London Unions had adopted the system of triennial elections. That was the law now, and why should they deprive them of it?

MR. FISHER

You are changing the whole system of election.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, they were not changing the system of election any more than it was changed by the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, when London was divided into a large number of electoral districts. The area of election was then extended, but the system of election remained the same. They had nothing to guide them in knowing how County Councils which succeeded each other would in the future deal with this question, and the decision arrived at by the Council of the present day would not be binding for all time. The County Council, after all, was the creature and not the creator of public opinion in London; and, however the County Council might feel on certain political questions, it was the commonest justice to admit that in administrative matters they had shown singular fairness and capacity, and they might safely be trusted to deal with this question of the retirement of one-third of the Guardians annually. That was a question that should be left to the locality, and it was one that neither the Local Government Board nor the House of Commons could deal with so well as the County Council. The great mischief to London government had been the perpetual exempting of London from Rules which applied elsewhere. Either they must trust the London County Council or they must abolish it, and he was not prepared to do that. He was not prepared to make any further advances to the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey); he had considered the scheme most fully and had done his best to meet the views of hon. Members, and he thought the House would be well advised to leave the matter as it was proposed by his Amendment.

MR. FISHER (Fulham)

wished that the London question had been left altogether out of the Bill. He believed that London required distinctive treatment of its own, and it was a grave misfortune that London should be treated in a Bill commonly known as the Parish Councils Bill. Very few Boards of Guardians, up to this week, even knew that London was treated in this Bill at all.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It was in the Bill on the Second Reading.

MR. FISHER

quite agreed; but there was a natural and reasonable hope that the Poor Law Clauses would be dropped, at all events so far as they related to London. The hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras (Sir J. Goldsmid) objected to the Amendment, because he was opposed to over-centralisation and was in favour of individual liberty, and that was why he (Mr. Fisher) objected to District Councils being manœuvred by the London County Council. He thought it was a very grave misfortune that the first time, when they were dealing in this Bill with the District Coun- cils for Loudon, they should set up the precedent of proposing to put these District Councils under the London County Council. His hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling) was not the first to import political considerations into this question; that was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), who distinctly told them he knew the Loudon County Council would take one view—

* SIR C. W. DILKE

I said I knew the London County Council would take that view, not for political but for administrative reasons.

MR. FISHER

said, he had not gathered that from the right hon. Baronet's remarks. The London County Council would take one view, and the Local Government Board would take another view, and at all events he should prefer that this matter should be left to the decision of the Local Government Board. At the same time, he thought his hon. Friend would be well advised not to press this Amendment, its, unfortunately, it would apply to a larger area than that in the interests of which he was now speaking. The hon. Member for the Oxford University (Mr. Talbot) said that hitherto the administrative action in Loudon had been very good, but then it should be remembered that the whole of our Poor Law administration was in the hands not only of elected Boards, but of ex officio and nominated Boards of Guardians. They were now, however, going to adopt a different system, under which they would have very different Boards elected, and, to his mind, it was the greatest change they had yet seen in local administration, and a change that required the greatest care and consideration. He had made a humble protest against London being included at all under these Poor Law Clauses, and later on he hoped his hon. Friend would press an Amendment that he had on the Paper to exclude London from the clause of the right hon. Gentleman.

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

said, he wished to ask on what ground the County Council was to act. Was it to act on the representation of the Board of Guardians, or was it to act simply on its own initiative, without any other Body setting it in motion? He was not dealing with the Loudon County Council, but with other County Councils throughout the country, with which they had something to do. It was very important for their future guidance that the right hon. Gentleman should state how he meant the County Councils should be set in motion. He thought the clause ought to run— Where the County Council consider as respects any Union in their county that it would be expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of the whole of the Board of Guardians for the Union, on the application of the Board of Guardians, they may direct." &c. He did not know whether that was the intention, or whether the County Councils were to be left in the dark as to their action.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could only answer the question put to him by the indulgence of the House; but his hon. Friend, with his experience as a Chairman of a County Council, knew that when they delegated certain powers and authority to the County Council they left it to the discretion of the County Council how those powers should be carried out. He did not contemplate limiting the action of the County Council in so serious a question.

MR. WHARTON

said, there was no suggestion in the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman that there should be any application at all.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said, he did not share the distrust expressed with regard to the London County Council, and he wished to say a word about the feeling of the Municipalities. Their views bad not been taken into account, though so far as the county boroughs were concerned they might be content, as they were provided for under Clause 62 of the Bill; but as to the non-county boroughs they were in a different position, and they did not wish to be placed I in any subordination, direct or indirect, to the County Councils. They had a very long and large experience of their own, and he was satisfied there would be a strong feeling against any appeal to the County Council. He knew their opinion would be that if there was to be any centralisation they would prefer to go direct to the Local Government Board, in whose administration they had the most perfect confidence. In regard to the municipal boroughs generally, he was strongly of opinion, therefore, they would object to any obligation to go to the County Council.

MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)

said, there was a, question connected with this matter which the House might do well to look at for a moment, and that was the additional cost that would necessarily fall on the localities in the event of the House adopting the system under which one-third of the Elected Body retired every year. In the case of Guardians, as for School Boards, they sat not for wards, but for the whole community, and, therefore, if one-third retired annually an election would have to take place every year, and the cost would he incurred over the whole community. Let him give an illustration of his meaning by taking the example of the School Board election for Birmingham. The cost of the election of the School Board in Birmingham was at least £1,200; if one-third of the School Board wont out every year there would be an annual cost—in case of a contest which in all probability would always occur—of£1,200 instead of £1,200 once in three years. This seemed to him to be an important consideration for the House to bear in mind, and one that was strongly in favour of the triennial election rather than the system of one-third retiring every year.

* MR. W. LONG (Liverpool, West Derby)

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman had made an allusion more than once to the previous Debates in which he (Mr. Long) took some part, he desired to say one word as to the vote he should give on the Amendment. He understood his hon. Friend behind him had decided to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment now before the House, and to move the Amendment standing in his name on the next page—namely, that the Guardians of London should be excluded from the purview of this Bill. He did not happen to share the views entertained by some hon. Members about the London County Council; he was not going to say anything about them, whether they were good or bad, but the London County Council must not blame hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House if they held the opinions that politics had entered largely into the administration of London affairs, and if, holding those opinions, they were naturally inclined to urge the view that this proposal should not apply to London. In voting for that he wished to guard himself against it being understood he was voting against the principle approved of by, he might say, the common agreement and the common sense of the House of Commons on previous occasions when they first decided that Guardians should be elected for three years, one-third retiring annually. Those of them who supported that principle did so expressing, as best they could, their apprehension that the subsequent clauses providing for the system would not work, but they would withhold their opinion until they reached them, when, if they found they would not work, they would vote for the triennial election. When they reached the clause in Committee their fears were fully realised, and were admitted to be sound, and, consequently, whether they liked it or not, they were forced to the conclusion that, with regard to the country as a whole, the triennial system was the only practicable one that could be adopted by County Councils, by the Local Government Board, or by Parliament for the purpose of the election of Guardians. Then they were asked to consider the separate case of London, and to exempt London from these provisions for reasons that had been already given. The argument used, added to that of his hon. Friend below the Gangway with regard to boroughs that were not county boroughs, went to prove that the Government had undertaken a herculean task by including the Poor Law in this Bill. What they had heard of the—

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

I must call the attention of the hon Gentleman to the Amendment before the House.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he was proposing to address himself to the objections raised by his hon. Friend below the Gangway. His hon. Friend had urged this would be objectionable to boroughs not county boroughs, and he was endeavouring to apply himself to his hon. Friend's objection, and was proposing to show—of course, he would not do so if he was out of Order—that it was impossible to arrive at any common ground of agreement where there were so many differences of opinion. His hon. Friend objected, on the part of Town Councils and Corporations not county boroughs, to their being put under the control of the County Councils.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

Not as boroughs.

* MR. W. LONG

Nor as boroughs, of course. He was going to tell his hon. Friend below the Gangway the county boroughs were in the same position as the non-county boroughs, and the division he had the honour to represent was in even a worse position. In his division parts of the City of Liverpool were included, and consequently two or three County Councils would have to deal with these particular areas. For his part, though not as a London Member, but acting in common agreement with his hon. Friends behind him on these questions, he should be prepared to support the last Amendment of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Darling). He had only one other word to say. The President of the Local Government Board told them they had no right to urge that changes were made with respect to the Guardians of London, and they might as well have urged them against the Reform Act of 1884. But what had hon. Gentlemen been doing since 1884? They were now not only effecting a similar change—it was no use hiding the fact from themselves—but they were disposing of the present system of electing Guardians, and any evidence they drew from the existing state of things could not honestly be relied on as to the way future Boards of Guardians would discharge their duties; therefore, that part of the argument was not worthy of much attention. He entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that they had discussed the question as fully as they could, and he, for one, should be extremely glad when the House found itself able to decide, not this Amendment, but the next one to be brought on by his hon. Friend.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

could not understand upon what kind of reasoning the hon. Member had satisfied himself that London should be treated differently to the rest of the country, and to him the hon. Member's arguments did not seem to carry conviction with them. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Fisher) say he did not believe that the Guardians of London knew they were concerned in this Bill, until a day or two previously, when they found out that they were being dealt with. His experience had been that the Guardians knew they were concerned much more than the Vestries knew that they were included in the Bill. The Guardians had been in the Bill ever since it was published, and he knew many of the London Guardians had been taking a keen interest in the Bill. He knew already there was an opinion amongst the Guardians, and those who took an interest in Guardian elections, as to the policy to be adopted. The County Councils would not put themselves in antagonism with the opinion of the district; they would find out the opinion of their locality, and would act accordingly. He was surprised at the attitude taken up by hon. Gentlemen opposite who represented Loudon; they seemed to be afraid of London being dealt with in any manner. The one great curse that had happened to London was that it was left out of the Bill of 1835. He said most positively that, so far as he knew London opinion, the London Boards of Guardians would have perfect confidence in being placed under the London County Council, and what they asked was to be dealt with the same as other localities.

MR. DARLING

asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that as the London question had been so fully discussed, he would ask that, the next Amendment of the hon. Member for Deptford should be moved, and that the House should come to a decision upon it without any further discussion.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. DARLING

moved the following Amendment:— That this Proviso shall not apply to the County of London. He did not think, however, that it was fair to London that the Amendment should be moved without a single word from any London Member interested, and even if the House had to sit on Saturday it would be better to do so than not to discuss important matters. He preferred that Loudon should be excluded for several reasons. The right hon. Gentleman admitted by his Bill that the best means of election was that of one-third retiring each year. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands) said, contrary to the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), that it would be perfectly practicable to have these retirements in London annually, that the localities would be consulted, therefore what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board proposed could be done, and why should it not be done. The hon. Gentleman knew it was the constant desire of the County Council to get into their hands more power than was given them by the Act which created them. They desired to get control of the Metropolis politically as well as municipally. They had asked for power to set up close to this House a building that would enable them, in a sense, to overshadow this House; their ideal was to become a mixture of the Paris Hôtel de Ville and Tammany Hall. Though in having said that much he had laid himself open again to a homily from the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Pancras (Sir J. Goldsmid) for introducing politics into this matter, it was impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that the political movement dominated the London County Council.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, At the end, to add the words.—"But this Proviso shall not apply to the County of London."—(Mr. Darling.)

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

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, his answer to the hon. Gentleman was that London did not wish to be excluded; he believed that in London the general opinion was that it would be more difficult to apply the system of annual elections than in any other part of the country. They would create the greatest difficulty if they succeeded, and therefore he trusted the common sense of the House would not adopt the proposal.

MR. WHITMOBE (Chelsea)

said that, in his opinion, if a system of wards in Poor Law Unions were introduced something would be done to give a more accurate complexion to local feeling, and to enable particular types of local life and particular sections—not necessarily political and not necessarily indicative of class feeling—to be represented on the Board of Guardians of the district than would be the case if there was an election over the entire district. If two-thirds of the Boards of Guardians were retained each year some security was being given for continuity of policy and of administration, at the same time preventing an outburst of popular feeling from sweeping away the whole Board of Guardians at once.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 139.—(Division List, No. 427.)

Words inserted.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 4, after the word "both," to insert the words "and not more than two other persons."—(Sir M. Hicks-Beach.)

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

MR. LUTTBELL (Devon, Tavistock)

said, he rose to oppose this Amendment. He confessed he did so with some reluctance, because he felt, and many others who sat around him felt, that they were placed in a most disagreeable, awkward, and, he might almost say, unnatural position. The position was unnatural because of the compromise, with which many of them did not agree, by which the Front Ministerial Bench was committed to support the Conservative Party in carrying out an arrangement which was certainly not in accordance with Liberal principles. He thought that the bulk of Liberal Members would not hesitate for a moment in choosing their course of action as between following the Government, whom it was their duty and generally their pleasure to follow, so far—but only so far—as they led them on Liberal lines, and voting against that which they believed to be opposed to Liberal principles. He believed that they would vote, reluctantly, but still unhesitatingly, in favour of Liberal principles. What was this Amendment? Its meaning was that four persons should be chosen from outside the Boards of Guardians. The first proposal of the Government was that there should be no ex officio or nominated Guardians; next, the President of the Local Government Board allowed a chairman to be chosen from outside the Board, and then a vice chairman; now it was asked there should be four persons chosen from outside. Many hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side were against having any persons brought in from outside. They thought that these popular bodies should be composed solely of men who represented the people and were directly responsible to them. He would not go back into past history, but if he did he thought he could show that the Liberal Party had over and over again championed this principle. They had voted against Aldermen in 1888; they opposed the introduction of the nominated or ex officio element when establishing School Boards; but now, with their heads turned in a different direction, they were going to allow a most aggravated form of optional Aldermen to be constituted. He and those who thought with him felt it to be their duty to oppose the Amendment, not only because it was not in accordance with Liberal principles, but also because many of them had made promises to their constituents. [Opposition cheers, and laughter.] Yes, and they intended to fulfil those promises. It was no light thing to make a promise, and when it was sincerely made it was rather a noble than an ignoble act so long as it was faithfully fulfilled. If the engine found it necessary to leave the line on account of obstruction there was no reason why the whole train should follow. He believed it was the duty of Liberals to remain on the old Liberal line, and he hoped the engine would soon come back and pull them along.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would not attempt to maintain the Debate at the high level to which it had just reached. He thought the sooner the discussion was brought to a conclusion, under the particular circumstances in which they found themselves, the better it would be for the House. They found Amendments being pushed into the Bill wholesale, and no time being allowed to Members to find out their meaning. That was a proceeding which scarcely redounded very much to the dignity of Parliament. Having on previous occasions expressed a strong opinion that the principle of co-optation was thoroughly unsound, he felt bound to record his vote against the present proposal. The ex officio system must not be confounded with the system of co-optation. The system of co-optation simply allowed a bare majority of a body composed, probably, of heated politicians, to co-optate four persons over and above and in addition to their majority, therein7 rendering the majority of the forces arrayed against each other more glaring. It was said that this principle would allow men of eminence, impartiality, and worth to come in from outside and raise the tone of these Representative Bodies, but he feared that experience had not verified that hope. He had on previous occasions avoided making reference to particular bodies, and he would do so now, but the London County Council had been so freely mentioned that he thought he might say that that body was a warning to that House of the way in which the power of co-optation might be abused. Other Corporations holding different views to the London County Council—views on general politics which he, perhaps, shared—formed examples which they should avoid. He noticed lower down an Amendment which the right hon. Baronet (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) proposed to move which would give a different complexion to the present Amendment—namely, to add— Provided that, on the first election, if a sufficient number of persons who have been ex officio or nominated Guardians of the Union, and have actually served as such, are willing to serve, the additional members shall be elected from among those persons. Nominated Guardians were to be selected in the first election. Good heavens! Why only in the first election? He supposed it meant—

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he understood that the general discussion on the principle of the Amendments was to be taken on the first proposal. However, he would reserve what he had to say with reference to the proviso he had quoted until those words were before the House. He might say that he objected to the Amendment, whether qualified or not, and he should vote against it.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he wished to add his protest to that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet against this ridiculous system of exaggerating the majority on the Boards of Guardians. When there was a majority on a Board of Guardians, and they gave the Board the power of introducing two or three other Guardians, the latter would, of course, be chosen by the majority. Instead, therefore, of tempering the majority, they would be adding to its weight and increasing its power. He did not know the origin of the Amendment, but he supposed it had arisen from the awakening of conscience of some of the Radical Members behind the Government Bench, and that they had pressed Ministers to adopt it, and a right bon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House to move it, in order to give it an air of respectability. He could not find that anyone in the part of the House on which he sat was in favour of it, or could see anything to be said in its favour. As to the other Amendments on the Paper bearing upon this question, where they were not unnecessary they were delusive. When there was a majority he was in favour of allowing that majority to work as it was. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes, and the continued and unwearied assistance he had given to the Government throughout the whole of the Session proved that. He wished to see the majority work, but was not in favour of artificially increasing it. He could see no reason for this absurd proviso, that when they had got a Board of Guardians they should proceed to alter it, not by importing into it brains or knowledge, but by allowing the majority with all its imperfections upon its head to choose two other persons worse than itself.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 71.—(Division List, No. 428.)

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 20, line 4, after "body," to insert "but from persons qualified to be Guardians.

On Motion of Sir M. HICKS-BEACH, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 20, line 4, leave out "chairman or vice chairman," and insert "person.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 5, at end, add "Provided that on the first election, if a sufficient number of persons who have been ex officio or nominated Guardians of the Union, and have actually served as such, are willing to serve, the additional members shall be elected from among those persons."—(Sir M. Hichs-Beach.)

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

* MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)

said, he did not wish to debate the question, but he desired to point out that it bad been pressed on the House again and again that it was desirable to bring in upon the Boards of Guardians the most fit and useful men from outside by co-optation or nomination or other means. This Amendment would limit the choice of the Council to those who had been ex officios, even though they might not be suitable and the best qualified men. There might be men of the highest qualification outside Boards of Guardians whom the Boards might be desirous of introducing on their bodies, but by the terms of the Amendment they would be tied down to make their selection in the first instance from ex officios, whom they might think inferior and unsuitable. He (Mr. Channing) thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would have been much better advised if he had accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire instead of this clumsy contrivance.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

said, he thought they ought to hear from the Government whether or not they agreed to such an extraordinary proposal as this. He did not know whether it was part of the "treaty"—or whatever it was called—or not; but to say, in the first place, that Boards of Guardians were to add four ex officios to their body, and then to tell them who those four members were to be, was a strange method of proceeding. He confessed he, for one, never bad any confidence in arrangements between the two Front Benches. ["Hear, hear!"] A Tory Member said "Hear, bear!" so that view must be right. He always found that compromises of that sort always put the people at a great disadvantage, and placed them, so to speak, between the devil and the deep sea. It certainly was an extraordinary thing that the Government should agree to such a proposal as this without comment or explanation—without telling the House whether they were in favour of it, and whether or not it was part of the secret treaty into which they had blindly entered. So far as he was concerned he should vote against the Government, and if he could get anyone to tell with him he should carry the point to a Division.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Clause 21, page 20, line 9, leave out from "of the," to the second "corporation," in line 10.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he desired to move a small Amendment to Clause 22, with the object of providing that the Chairman of a Board of Guardians should, by virtue of that office, be a Justice of the Peace for the district within which the Board existed. He had been told that in ibis Amendment he was actually suggesting ex officio Magistrates, while he opposed, on the other hand, exofficio members of Boards of Guardians. The proposal was nothing of the sort. The idea of suggesting that these chairmen should be Magistrates was to provide that the Magistrates should be appointed by Local Bodies instead of by the Lord Chancellor. He would prefer that they should he appointed directly by the people, but the proposal he made, if adopted, would be better than the system at present practised. There need not be a larger number of Magistrates created than they had at present, but the plan he proposed would give them Magistrates independently of property qualification or of politics, and would be better for the administration of the laws of the country. He did not see why the Government should make any distinction in this matter between Chairmen of District Councils and Chairmen of Boards of Guardians. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment, and that the House would agree to it unanimously.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 19, after the word "a," to insert the words "Board of Guardians or."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that as the law at present stood the Chairman of the Board of Guardians was also Chairman of the Rural Sanitary Authority. The desire of the Government was to continue that state of things, one person presiding over the two bodies. It would be to the disadvantage of the District Council if they were to provide that a certain person should preside over it in the discharge of one portion of its work and that another person should preside over it in the discharge of the other portion of its work. They had already provided that the person presiding over the Guardians should be ex officio Magistrates.

MR. STOREY

said, he desired to know what would he the position if ii gentleman were Chairman of the Guardians, but not of the Rural District Council?

MR. CHANGING

said, that in his own division there was a case in point where a Chairman of the Board of Guardians would not after the passing of the Bill be in the position of Chairman of the Rural District Council.

Question put, and negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) is out of Order.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he desired to move the Amendment standing in his name, the object of which was to make it clear that a solicitor who was elected as Chairman of a District Council should not be disqualified from having a seat on the Bench. He thought no such personal disqualification should ensue upon election lo the office of chairman, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was the last person to add to any disqualification, which this clause did.

Amendment proposed, In page 20, line 20, after the word "Act," to insert the words "for which purpose the 33rd section of the Act of the 34th year of Victoria, c. 18, shall not apply."—(Sir A. Rollit.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that if the House desired the acceptance of the Amendment he would not resist it.

* LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I think this an unfortunate change to make. I do not think it at all desirable that local solicitors who have local clients and local interests should be qualified to fill the position of Magistrates. I cannot conceive how the administration of local justice could be improved by putting upon the Bench men who cannot help taking an interested part in the decision of cases in which at one time or another they may he concerned. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will not introduce this novelty into the Bill. It is a repeal of a certain class of disqualification which has existed for a long time.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

It does not exist in the boroughs; it only exists in the counties.

* LORD R. CHURCHILL

Well, I think it is a bad Amendment in itself.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I may explain that I said that if it was the general sense of the House I would accept the Amendment. I quite admit that if it were adopted it would amount to the introduction of fresh matter into the Bill, and if the Front Bench opposite objects to it I shall oppose it.

MR. PAUL (Edinburgh, S.)

said, he should have thought it would be a very great advantage to have on the County Bench some gentlemen who, to use the expression of the noble Lord, could not help having a knowledge of law.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I did not use that expression. I said an interest in the case.

MR. BILLSON (Devon, Barnstaple)

remarked that no solicitor could sit as a Justice in any case in which he was concerned. There had been a strong feeling on the part of solicitors respecting the disqualification to which they were now subject.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

observed that, as a general rule of law, no persons who had any interest in a particular case could take part in adjudicating upon it. He should like to see that particular provision of the law applied to game-preserving Magistrates. In the case of Borough Magistrates solicitors were not disqualified at present, whilst solicitors could sit on the County Bench providing that they were not acting as solicitors. He hoped the Amendment would be adopted.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

pointed out that if the Amendment were agreed to there ought to be some proviso to prevent the partner of a solicitor who was on the Bench from appearing before the Bench, as otherwise the Magistrate would have a vicarious interest in the case.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he had no intention of discussing or arguing the question whether or not solicitors would serve well as Magistrates. All he wished to say was that if the change proposed were desirable and met with common assent it could easily be carried out by the ordinary method. This was not the right place in which to make the change. If proposals of this kind, effecting changes in the general law, were accepted by the Government, opposition would be raised in one quarter and another and the progress of the Bill would be interfered with.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

That being the case I must oppose the Amendment.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, that as he was interrupted in his argument by the indication he had received that the Amendment would be accepted, he wished, with the permission of the House, to say that the Mayor of a borough and the Chairman of a County Council under exactly similar circumstances were not disqualified, although they were solicitors; the disqualifying words in the clause were quite new. He should press the Amendment to a Division.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, this question had been sprung upon the House so suddenly that he should like to have some guidance or information from the Treasury Bench as to the present condition of the law. As far as he could gather, a solicitor might sit on the Bench of a borough, but not on a County Bench. He wished to know what was the reason why the distinction had been drawn between the Borough and the County Bench? If that reason still existed, he should be against sweeping away the disqualification; but, looking at the matter from the common-sense point of view, he could not see why the distinction was ever made.

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

I am not at all sure that I can give the reason why the difference was made between a solicitor in a borough and a solicitor in a county; but, speaking from recollection, I think the fact is that originally solicitors were disqualified both in counties and in boroughs; that an exception was then made in one of the Municipal Corporal ions Acts as to solicitors in boroughs; that it was found after this change that the distinction between solicitors in counties and those in boroughs was not altogether justifiable, and that accordingly the Act of 33 and 34 Vict. did not indeed place solicitors on precisely the same level as regards the County Bench, but did so far remove their disqualification as to enable them to sit on the County Bench of any division in which they did not practice. That seems to have been the removal of a substantial part of the grievance. In boroughs the disqualification has been removed entirely, whereas in counties it has only been removed partially.

* SIR A.ROLLIT

pointed out that the disqualifying words did not exist in the County Council Act of 1888, and that they were inserted in this Bill for the first time.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, it was clear that a considerable degree of uncertainty surrounded the matter, inasmuch as those two great co-ordinate legal luminaries the Solicitor General and the hon. Member for Islington (Sir A. Rollit) were not agreed. It seemed clear, however, that some disqualification existed in the counties. It might be right that it should be abolished, but it ought not to be abolished in the sudden and snapshot way in which it was now proposed to be abolished.

Question put.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

declared that the Ayes had it, and the Amendment was consequently rejected.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

I distinctly challenged a Division, Sir.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

I did not hear the hon. Member challenge my decision.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

Of course I submit, but I distinctly challenged a. Division, and I had previously intimated my intention of doing so.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 6, to leave out the second "the."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he did not know whether his right hon. Friend had fully considered what would be the effect in London of the change he had made in this clause. The elections were to be conducted under Rules to be made by the Local Government Board, but under Clause 37 it was provided that the County Council or the Local Government Board might fix the day and hour of the polling. That was perfectly right with regard to urban districts generally, but it would be a pity to run the slightest risk that the existing hours of polling—8 to 8—should be altered in London. Perhaps before Clause 37 was reached his right hon. Friend would see whether the provision could not be modified with regard to London.

Question put, and negatived.

Several verbal Amendments agreed to.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

moved, at the end of Clause 23, to insert— Where the County Council, upon the request of any Urban Sanitary Authority other than a borough, in that county considers, as respects any such District Council that it would be expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of the whole of the members of that Council, they may direct that the members of that Council shall retire together on the 15th day of April in every third year, and such Order shall have full effect, and where the Council is in more than one county, the Order may be made by a joint committee of the Councils of those counties. He said, that in the County of Durham there were 20 Urban and 14 Rural Authorities. The County Council of Durham was to have power to order that the elections of all the Rural Authorities should be triennial, all the members retiring together, but was to have no power to make any order with reference to the Urban Authorities. The law as to Urban Authorities was that they should be elected for three years, and retire by thirds each year. The Bill made no change in that matter, but he thought there ought to be a change with a view of securing uniformity, cheapness, and combination of elections. The Urban Sanitary Authority of Barnard Castle bad 4,341 inhabitants and 800 electors. Under the existing law, which was continued by this Bill, the whole of the 800 electors must vote for a third of the members of the authority each year, or else this small place must be divided into wards, each having about 270 electors. Then there was the case of Stanhope, with 1,864 inhabitants, and he supposed about 300 electors. Was it not utterly absurd to continue a, system under which so small a place had to vote for a third of its members each year? As far as his experience went, those little places desired to have fewer elections than they had at present. One reason for adopting the Amendment was, that if there were in the same district Rural Authorities holding triennial elections, and Urban Authorities holding elections by thirds, all the advantages which would spring from coupling elections would be lost. He asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) to give the County Council equal power over all the areas under its jurisdiction, whether they were urban or rural. He did not prescribe that the County Council should do this of its own will. He left the initiative to the Urban Authorities, who would have to petition the County Council, or else remain as they were. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to apply his own Amendment on Clause 20 to the case of rural districts, so as to minimise the labour of County Councils, and to I give cheap, suitable, and combined elections.

Amendment proposed, To insert at the end of Clause 23, "Where the County Council, upon the request of any Urban Sanitary Authority other than a borough, in that county considers, as respects any such District Council, that it would be expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of the whole of the members of that Council, they may direct that the members of that Council shall retire together on the 15th day of April in every third year, and such order shall have full effect, and where the Council is in more than one county, the order may be made by a joint committee of the Councils of those counties."—(Mr. Storey.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is a proposal to change what has been the law of the land since 1848—namely, that one-third of the number of members elected for each district or, in the case of wards, one-third of the number elected for each ward should go out of office on the 15th April in each year. This has been in force for nearly 50 years, and my hon. Friend is the first man to raise an objection to it. Now, on the last night of the Report stage of the Bill, without the slightest notice to Local Authorities, he proposes to put under the control of the County Council the power of altering the mode of election. There is no analogy between Urban Authorities and Boards of Guardians. The latter go out in most cases every year. As to the appeal of my hon. Friend with reference to cost, I am absolutely unable to follow him. It may be my stupidity, but I really cannot understand his point. Every urban district will go on electing as at present. I should be quite willing to meet my hon. Friend on the merits, but, setting aside the merits, I put it to the House that it is not fair that Urban Authorities, having had no notice whatever of the introduction of this change, and there having been a general understanding between the two sides of the House—an understanding which, if we apply it to gentlemen opposite, we must apply to our own friends—such an Amendment should be imposed upon them.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

pointed out that nothing was to be done under the Amendment unless the Local Authority petitioned the County Council. As to the question of cost, be would refer to four districts in his own constituency, which were just as rural as the rural parishes which surrounded them, but which were technically urban. These districts would be picked out under the proposal of the Bill from the others, and while all the other Sanitary Authorities in the neighbourhood would still have elections every third year, these particular districts would have to have elections of one-third of their members every year. The question, of cost would come in by having annual elections in place of triennial. Some of the districts were so small that it was absurd not to give them the power of changing the system if they liked. The hon. Member had spoken of cases where there were 800 electors, but there were many districts where there were not 100 electors, and to say that they should be put to the cost of an election every year instead of every three years, if they did not wish to have annual elections, was preposterous. Under the present system with the property vote, in a great many of these small districts there was seldom an election. Under the Bill the state of things would be different, and in districts that were entirely rural and which had not known a poll for a quarter of a century they would have a contested election every year. There would be a great change and a great increase of expenditure in these districts, and it did seem to him the simplest plan to allow them to petition the County Council if they desired to have the change made.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, the hon. Member for Sunderland had accurately stated that jurisdiction could only be assumed by the County Council on the initiative of the particular authority that desired the change. An one reason for doing it he (Sir A. Rollit) would point out that they were altering the law from what it was of 1875. A great increase in the number of elections had taken place since that time, and they were materially adding to the number every year. They were likely to have an epidemic of elections, and if a particular locality itself desired to limit the number and the expense of them he did not know why it should not be allowed to do so.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, he did not see how there could be any objection to this very moderate proposal. They were only anxious to consult the wishes of the locality itself. This was one of the points on which hon. Gentlemen might extend a concession, without serious injury to that freedom and liberty which, after all, was an important principle of local government.

MR. J. STUART

said, that if this change were carried out in the clause, following the line upon which they had hitherto gone, he should propose that it be extended to the Vestries in London. He should not move the Amendment on this clause, but on Clause 30. As Amendments could not be moved on Report without some notice, he now gave notice of his intention to move on Clause 30.

* MR. W. LONG

said, that before the Amendment was disposed of he desired to say, in the spirit of the statement which had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, that the proposal was practically what he and others had all along recommended; and he did not share the strong views of the President of the Local Government Board as to the change which the proposal would effect. Perhaps, under the great pressure of work which had devolved upon him, having had to consider Amendment after Amendment, the right, hon. Gentleman had not quite appreciated the fact that this was purely an enabling Amendment, and the right hon. Gentleman would agree that his contention that to accept this Amendment would be forcing an unfair proposal on the Local Authority, without previously consulting them, could hardly be sustained. Manifestly, the Local Authority would not avail themselves of this provision, unless they were willing that the change should be effected. He would repeat, that there would undoubtedly be far more elections in the future than there had been in the past. The past history of elections in these electoral districts was no indication of what would take place in the future, and if they were to adhere to the principle so often laid down in these Debates, that they must economise as much as they could, it was obvious that economy could only be effected by reducing the number of elections as far as possible, and holding them as far as possible on the same day. He felt that they were in this difficulty— they had agreed that no proposal should be entertained at this stage which was objected to in any particular quarter; and the Minister in charge of the Bill had loyally adhered to that arrangement. He did not think, speaking for gentle-men on the Opposition side of the House, that they would object to the present proposal, and apparently gentlemen on the Government side would not object cither. There had, however, been an objection expressed in a most important quarter—namely, by the President of the Local Government Board; and though he (MR. Long) should be sorry to see the proposal rejected, he would, if the circumstances were different, vote in support of it. If the right hon. Gentleman could not depart from his position, he felt strongly that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct towards the Opposition demanded a loyalty from them no less than that which he had shown. He should, therefore, be precluded from giving his vote in support of the Amendment, though he heartily approved of it, as in conformity of views he had already expressed.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER,

with the permission of the House, desired to say that the hon. Member for Shoreditch had said that if this proposal were accepted the principle of it would have to be applied to London. That would embark the House in another difficult controversy. The House had studiously avoided interfering with the general arrangements for the election of the London Vestries. It would be too great a change to apply the triennial principle to Loudon, and he must adhere to his opinion that it could not be introduced at this stage of the Bill.

MR. C. DODD

Would there be any difficulty in exempting London?

MR. CONYBEARE

said, this power would be permissive—London would not be compelled to exercise it. It seemed very strange that where, practically, there was a complete consensus of opinion in favour of the Amendment on both sides of the House, they should not be able to effect what would be an improvement so far as the expense of elections was concerned. He was sorry that the hon. Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (MR. Long), owing to the compact entered into between his Colleagues and the Government—[An hon. MEMBER: No compact]—well, something like it—was not able to vote with the supporters of the Amendment on this occasion. For his own part, he could only say that he regarded the Amendment as a distinct improvement, and he did not consider himself bound by any compromise or understanding. If the Amendment were carried to a Division he (Mr. Conybeare) should vote with him.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he had not referred to any compact, but to the honourable understanding that the Bill was to be carried through the Report stage to-day, and that that could only be done by refraining from introducing foreign matter which would lead to opposition from any particular part of the House.

MR. WARNER (Somerset, N.)

said, this was a permissive clause, showing a way out of a great difficulty which hon. Gentlemen opposite had recognised over and over again. He thought they might have expected the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to meet them in some way. Members in all parts of the House had spoken in favour of the Amendment.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he felt in a position of considerable complexity in this matter. His feeling as to the country was that that proposal would be a considerable improvement. If all parts of the House consented, there was no reason why the Minister in charge of the Bill should not give way. But the right hon. Gentleman said that would raise the question of London. Would he give way if an understanding could be arrived at that the Amendment should not be extended to London?

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

said, he would urge the hon. Member for Hackney to withdraw the claim of London for the present. They all admitted that the claim was a good one, and the hon. Member would have a further opportunity of pressing it. The Amendment would be a great improvement so far as the country was concerned, and it would be very selfish on the part of London to say to the country, "Because we can't have this, you shan't." The right hon. Gentleman had been most considerate in the conduct of the Bill and most anxious to meet the wishes of all parties, and lie would urge him in the present case not to throw any difficulty in the way of carrying out the general wish of the House.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that he had no wish to set his own individual opinion against the general wish of the House. The question of London had been the difficulty. If there were a distinct understanding that the London Members would waive the claim which they undoubtedly would have for the provision to be extended to Loudon, he would not insist upon his views. He had made his protest, and his withers would be unwrung. So far as the urban districts were concerned he should be unwilling to press his own views on the House, if it were distinctly understood that the Amendment did not apply to London.

MR. J. STUART

said, it was hard that London should have been separated from the country in this matter; but as they had got so much for London in the Bill, he, as a Representative of Loudon, would not stand in the way of an agreement.

MR. CREMER (Shoreditch, Haggerston)

said, it was not quite clear to him that the Amendment if accepted would not apply to London.

MR. WHITMORE

said, he thought there should be a distinct concurrence on the point as to whether the Amendment would or would not apply to London; because while some hon. Members on the Opposition side did not wish to prevent the change being applied to the country, they did not consider that London should be included in its operation.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 24, page 21, line 14, after "parishes," insert "or other areas. Line 23, after "elected," insert "for that parish or area. Line 25, after "office," insert "and retirement. Line 25, after "Guardians," insert "and to the qualification of the Chairman of the Board of Guardians. Line 26, after "councillors," insert "and to the Chairman of the District Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 29, after the word "shall," to insert the words "unless the County Council of that Administrative County, for special reasons, otherwise direct, and."—(Major Dartwin.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

suggested that a better Amendment would be to insert after "shall" the words "unless otherwise provided."

MAJOR DARWIN

said, he would accept that form of words.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he preferred the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had moved, as it would greatly improve the Bill, though, when he read it on the Paper, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would accept it, because it ran counter to the views he had expressed on the subject. Take the case of a single parish of a Union which was in a different county from the remainder of the Union. In such then-was a provision that there might be a temporary administration of the parish by the Union to which it belonged, and lie was perfectly certain, owing to the opposition to change, that a temporary state of things would go on as long as the Local Government Board concurred. The County Council, which had the power to postpone action in the matter, would throw the unpopularity of the change on the Local Government Board, instead of taking it on their own shoulders. That was to say, the County Council would postpone action until the Local Government Board stepped in. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield would have found a way out of that difficulty, and he would have been glad to support it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 21, line 26, after the word "shall," to insert the words "same as otherwise provided."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

* MR. W. LONG

said, he doubled that the substituted Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman would effect any practical change in the Bill, and would certainly not meet the difficulties, which had been pointed out in Committee, that isolated parishes would be placed in now that a Union must be entirely within one Administrative County.

MAJOR DARWIN

said, it. seemed to him that the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman met the case lie had in mind, and lie therefore accepted them.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 25, page 22, line 16, after "powers, "insert" duties and liabilities. Line 22, after "county." insert "or any part thereof.

MR. W. LONG

moved— In page 22, line 22, after the word "may," to leave out to the end of Sub-section (1), and insert the words "if they deem it expedient to retain the existing Highway Authorities other than Highway Boards, or any of them, within their county by order exclude their county or any part thereof from the operation of this section so far as it relates to highways, or from time to time postpone such operation for such time and to such extent as they may deem advisable. He said, the arguments in support of this Amendment had been so fully urged in Committee that he would not weary the House now by repeating them. He would say that it was not a sentimental grievance or an imaginary difficulty that he proposed to deal with. It would be felt as a real grievance and as a substantial difficulty. What he asked for was that permissive powers should be inserted in the Bill to enable the County Council, as the popularly-elected Representative Authority of the county, to exclude any of their areas from the highway provision, if they believed that such action would tend to good administration and economy of expenditure.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 22, after the word "may," to leave out to the end of Sub-section (1), and insert the words "if they deem it expedient to retain the existing Highway Authorities other than Highway Boards, or any of them, within their County by order exclude their county or any part thereof from the operation of this section so far as it relates to highways, or from time to time postpone such operation for such time and to such extent as they may deem advisable."—(Mr W. Lung.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'by order postpone within their county' stand part of the Bill."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper, which he hoped would meet the hon. Gentleman's views. It was, that in addition to the three years allowed to the County Council to suspend action with regard to the clause there should be such further period as the Local Government Board may on the application of such Council allow.

SIR C. W. DILKE

said, that further concession of the Government would not meet the views of those who objected to the arrangement proposed in the clause. Matters were to be allowed to go on temporarily as they were. But their objection was to the principle of forcing this change at all upon the districts. Personally he had gone further than that in Committee, for he had argued that the rural districts under the Bill were geographically the most imperfectly-constructed districts for highway purposes. However, they must only be content with what they got from the Government. If there was one power given by the Bill to the rural sanitary districts which was most objected to, it was certainly this power with regard to the highways.

SIR J. DORINGTON

said, he objected to the proposals in this clause, because they crystallised the rural sanitary districts into the Highway Authorities of the county. They had better machinery and a better area of administration when the work was vested in the County Council, and they had no business in setting up a second expensive machinery in the county to do that which the county was well able to do itself—that was, to look after the main roads which were used by the general public of the county, and to leave the parishes to attend to the parish roads. He believed that the temporary provision which the right hon. Gentleman had inserted in the clause would be largely availed of, and perhaps it might lead to a Parliamentary inquiry into highway administration, with a view to having it placed on a sound basis.

COMMANDER BETHELL

said, that early in the evening they had had a most eloquent speech from the President of the Local Government Board on the advantage of leaving local matters to be looked after in the localities. As he listened to that speech he wondered whether any of those noble sentiments would have been left by the time the present Amendment was reached, and he found now that not a single trace of one of those sentiments remained. He could not admit that the further concession which the right hon. Gentleman had made was any concession whatever to their views. It was simply a further postponement, and in principle left the matter exactly where it was.

MR. EVERETT

said, he was glad the Government had met their views to a certain extent, though not in a way that was thoroughly satisfactory. It would have been better in the interest of economy and of good local government if the people were allowed to manage their own affairs with regard to highways.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said, a question would arise, in his county at all events, owing to the alteration of the clause, relating to the appointed day. Originally it was a shifting day; it was now a fixed day. The question that would arise was whether, under the power of postponement in the clause, the County Council of his county, who would probably desire this transfer from the existing Highway Boards, could allow the powers and duties to go over to the new District Council without interfering with their current contracts with the existing Highway Boards. The contracts were made j from the 1st of April to the 1st of April, and would therefore have half a year of their existence to run on the appointed day in November.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the power of postponement would enable the County Council to do what the hon. Member had described.

* MR. W. LONG

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman not in fulfilment of his desires, nor even as half a loaf, but merely as a small roll.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowled the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 22, line 24, after "day," insert or such further period as the Local Government Board may on the application of such Council allow.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, after line 24, to insert the words "Where a highway repairable ratione tenure is not in proper repair, and the person liable to repair the same fails when requested so to do by the District Council to place it in proper repair, the District Council may place the road in proper repair, and recover from the person liable to repair the road the necessary expenses of so doing."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

MR. HANBURY

said, he had to thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in this provision to meet a point which he had raised in Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury)

moved the following:— In page 22, line 24, after the last Amendment, to insert the words,— "(2) Any Rural District Council may, within 12 months after this section, so far as it relates to highways, comes into operation in the district, claim to maintain and repair any main road within the district which, when this section comes into operation therein, is repaired by any Highway Authority in pursuance of Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Subsections 2, 3. and 5 of that section shall with the necessary modifications apply accordingly as if the District Council were an Urban Authority. The hon. Member said, he had received a great many communications upon this subject, a strong feeling existed, and he must ask the Committee to consider it seriously. By the 11th section of the Act of 1888 Urban Authorities had an opportunity within 12 mouths of determining whether they would or would not take over the whole of the maintenance of the main roads in their districts, and a very large proportion of the Urban Authorities had done so. He wanted that the same power should be given to the Rural Sanitary Authorities. There were in England and Wales 920 Urban Sanitary Authorities and 780 Rural Sanitary Authorities. All those 920 Urban Sanitary Authorities had had an opportunity of saying whether they would maintain their main roads, but the 780 Rural Sanitary Authorities had never had that opportunity. It was an over- sight not to have given that option to the Rural Sanitary Authorities. There were about 20,000 miles of main roads, 11,550 of which were maintained by the County Councils and 8,450 by the Rural Highway Authorities. That meant that two-fifths of the whole mileage of main roads in the country were now recognised as properly kept under the Rural Highway Authority system, lie contended that the proposal he made would prove to be much more economical, in addition to being an act of common justice to the rural districts.

Amendment proposed, In page 22, line 24, after the last Amendment, to insert the words,— "(2) Any Rural District Council may, within 12 months after this section, so far as it relates to highways, comes into operation in the district, claim to maintain and repair any main road within the district which, when this section comes into operation therein, is repaired by any Highway Authority in pursuance of Sub-section 4 of Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Sub-sections 2, 3, and 5 of that section shall with the necessary modifications apply accordingly as if the District Council were an Urban Authority."— (Mr. Fuller.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he might point out to the hon. Member that this question would have been more properly raised in Committee, when hon. Members who were interested in it might have taken part in the discussion. This was a proposal which was very fully discussed at the time of the passing of the Local Government Act, 1888, and great difficulty was felt on the subject. Parliament then refused, after full discussion, to confer a compulsory power of taking over the main roads in the case of Highway Authorities in rural districts, but did confer such a power in the case of Urban Sanitary Authorities. The conditions in the urban districts, however, were different from those in the rural districts. The hon. Member's proposal was altogether of a retrogressive character. The County Councils were at present carrying out the work of repairing the main roads of the country in a very satisfactory manner, and he thought it would be unwise to interfere with the present state of things. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 22, line 25, after "powers," insert "duties and liabilities. Lines 31 and 32, leave out "so made," and insert "made under this section.

* SIR F. S. POWELL

moved, in Clause 26, page 22, line 39, after "the," insert "unlawful." He said, he was induced to move this Amendment by an expression which had fallen from the Solicitor General, to the effect that he might accept this word in order to prevent any uncertainty.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 26, page 22, line 39, after the word "the," to insert the word "unlawful."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'unlawful' be there inserted."

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, the hon. Baronet was quite right in saying he had indicated that perhaps he might accept the word "unlawful." He was proposing, however, to make a slightly different reading of the section, which would render "unnecessary" the word "unlawful." He proposed to make the section read— Prevent as far as possible the stopping up or obstruction of any such right of way. He should then propose to leave out the words down to "whether"; then he should accept the Amendment of the hon, and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Darwin), to leave out "same county," and insert— County or counties in which the district is situate. He should then omit "that," and insert the word "where." This would carry out the object of the hon. Baronet, and he would therefore ask him to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Sir J. Rigby the following Amendments were agreed to:— To leave out from "any," in line 40, to the word "whether," in line 41; to insert "and such right of way. In line 42, to leave out "same county," and insert "county or counties in which the district is situate. In line 42, leave out "is of such nature," and insert "where.

Other Amendments made.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

had the following Amendment:— Clause 30, page 25, line 7, after the word "Vestries." to insert the words "and auditors of accounts. The right hon. Baronet said, he did not propose to move this Amendment, as the President of the Local Government Board was accepting a Schedule which carried out the same intention. The words of the right hon. Gentleman, however, made a terribly involved sentence, and perhaps he would consider later on whether they could not be broken up into several sentences, so that their meaning would be clearer.

Other Amendments made.

MR. J. STUART

moved the following Amendment:— Clause 30, page 25, line 12, after the word "Vestries," to insert the words "each of the said Vestries, except those electing District Boards, and each of the said District Boards and the Local Board of Woolwich shall at their first meeting after the annual election of members elect a chairman for the year, and Section 41 of 'The Metropolis Management Act, 1855,'shall apply only in case of the absence of such chairman, and the provisions of this Act with respect to chairmen of Urban District Councils, being Justices, shall apply as if the said Vestries and Boards were Urban District Councils. He said, the Amendment was really of a consequential character. The action of the House had been to assimilate as far as possible the position of the Metropolis to that of the rest of the country. Although there was some little difference of opinion about the matter of the Guardians, there was no difference of opinion whatever on the matter of the Vestries, and it was unanimously agreed by the Committee that the Bill should have the same effect on the Vestries that it had upon the Urban District Councils, and they had taken step after step in which they had assimilated the action of the Bill on the London Vestries to that upon the Urban District Councils. On Clause 30 of the Bill they introduced the London Vestries and District Boards in such a way as that the clauses of the Bill that applied to Urban District Councils in the County should apply to these London Vestries and District Boards of Works, and therefore, as he had said, this Amendment was merely consequential. The provision was a very simple one, by which the Act should apply to chairmen of Urban District Councils as if the Vestries and Hoards were Urban District Councils. He hoped the Government would accept his proposal.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 30, page 25, lint 12, after the word "Vestries," to insert the words "each of the said Vestries, except those electing District Boards, and each of the said District Boards and the Local Board of Woolwich shall at their first meeting after the annual election of members elect a chairman for the year, and Section 41 of 'The Metropolis Management Act. 1855,' shall apply only in the ease of the absence of such chairman, and the provisions of this Act with respect to chairmen of Urban District Councils, being Justices, shall apply as if the said Vestries and Boards were Urban District Councils."— (Mr. J. Stuart.)

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

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

said that, as a general rule, he believed the ex officio chairmen of Vestries had performed their duties impartially and satisfactorily: but, as they were passing away, the Vestry was placed in the position of having to elect their own chairman, and they should be enabled to do so for the year, which was not the case at present. Obviously, it seemed to him, the honour of the Magistracy should follow on that appointment.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman woidd entertain this proposal favourably before the Bill passed into law: but he would invite the President of the Local Government Board to carefully consider the language of the Bill, because the drafting was, in his opinion, a little unfortunate. It certainly was not very clear—

MR. J. STUART

said, his Amendment, as the right hon. Baronet would see, put into operation the Metropolis Management Act in the case of the absence of the chairman.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, he was not objecting in the slightest to the hon. Member's proposal. It was quite workable. He was merely pointing out that the drafting was not calculated to make the meaning very clear.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, this was an important matter, and he thought he was entitled to lay stress on the inconvenience of giving such short time to hon. Members to put down Amendments dealing with the proposal. The Vestries had had no opportunity of considering this Amendment, and the President of the Local Government Board would agree that where changes were being made in the constitution of Local Authorities they ought to have some opportunity to make representation or to suggest any changes. Though he did not oppose the proposal, he ought to say that he had nor been able to communicate with his constituents on the subject, and he did not know what view they would take of it; and he must again express his dissatisfaction that matters of vital interest should have to be disposed of in this manner. It was scarcely fair that a question of so much importance should be dealt with in this way, because it could not be said that they had had any real opportunity of considering it.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman as to the inconvenience; but he looked upon this as an Amendment for the convenience and advantage of the Vestries. In Committee the ex officio chairmen were removed from the provisions of the Bill, and therefore the Vestries had no permanent chairmen. It was necessary to place the Vestries in the position to elect chairmen, and his hon. Friend proposed that, whereas the chairmen of the District Councils would be raised to the dignity of the Magistracy, the same principle should apply to the citizens who presided over Local Authorities of the Metropolis in places like, for example, Islington. The drafting would be considered carefully hereafter. The Amendment met with the approval of the Government, and he would accept it.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, with the indulgence of the House, he would observe that Local Authorities should really be allowed to know what was going on.

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

was understood to say that the Local Authorities in London did support this proposal, and were in favour of it.

MR. THORNTON (Clapham)

said, he was bound to state that a contrary impression prevailed in the district of London to which ho belonged. The District Board had been in communication with him, and he thought he should not be doing his duty if he did not enter a protest against the Amendment.

MR. HANRURY

said, he could point, out that the only persons who were not to be Justices of the Peace were the Mayors of large boroughs.

An hon. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. HANBURY

said, no. There was an anomaly created, which he thought should not he allowed to exist.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

said, he submitted there was no reason whatever why the Mayors should not, like the Chairmen of District Councils, he County Magistrates.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would really submit to Mr. Deputy Speaker. It the discussion were to proceed, he should have a right to reply.

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

said, lie did not want to prolong discussion. It might, however, he due to his ignorance, but he would like to ask to what class of Vestries in London the Amendment was intended to apply?

MR. J. STUART

said, by the indulgence of the House, he might he allowed to explain that the Amendment did not apply to the Vestries of the City, but to the large Vestries which were also Local Sanitary Authorities—to those bodies in Loudon which corresponded with Urban District Councils.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

MR. CUBITT (Surrey, Reigate)

said, he had to move, on behalf of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester (Viscount Cranborue), to insert the following clause:— Where an ecclesiastical parish is situate wholly or partly within the boundary of a rural parish, it shall be lawful for any live parochial electors, registered in such part of the Register hereinbefore mentioned as relates to such ecclesiastical parish, to convene a meeting of such parochial electors in the manner prescribed by this Act for convening parish meetings, for the special purpose of ascertaining the opinion of such electors upon the question whether it is desirable that such ecclesiastical parish shall be created a separate rural parish under this Act, and if a resolution be passed at such meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting in favour of such ecclesiastical parish being created a separate rural parish under this Act, the person presiding at such meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the County Council shall take such resolution into consideration and shall cause inquiries to be made and notices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and if satisfied that the proposal contained in such resolution is desirable shall make such orders as they deem most suitable for carrying such resolution into effect in accordance with the provisions of this section. He (Mr. Cubitt) claimed the indulgence usually extended by the House to Members who addressed it for the first time. This was a matter of considerable importance to the part of the country which he represented. In that division many parishes were situated in the way described in the Amendment, and he thought the question which the Amendment raised was, therefore, very important. In his Division of Surrey there were a great many new ecclesiastical districts which, owing to the hilly nature of the country, were so situated that they ought to be made into separate parishes.

Amendment proposed, In page 26, line 38, afterthe word "districts," to insert the words, "Where an ecclesiastical parish is situate wholly or partly within the boundary of a rural parish, it shall be lawful for any five parochial electors, registered in such part of the Register hereinbefore mentioned as relates to such ecclesiastical parish, to convene a meeting of such parochial electors in the manner prescribed by this Act for convening parish meetings, for the special purpose of ascertaining the opinion of such electors upon the question whether it is desirable that such ecclesiastical parish shall be created a separate rural parish under this Act. and if a resolution be passed at such meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting in favour of such ecclesiastical parish being created a separate rural parish under this Act, the person presiding at such meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the County Council shall take such resolution into consideration and shall cause inquiries to be made and notices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of 'The Local Government Act, 1888,' and if satisfied that the proposals contained in such resolution is desirable shall make such orders as they deem most suitable for carrying such resolution into effect in accordance with the provisions of this section."—(Mr Cubitt.)

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

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he took a particular interest in this Amendment, because it affected the parish in which he himself lived, and he believed a vast number of other parishes as well. The ecclesiastical districts which at present had a separate parish life, but which had no separate poor rate levied on them, were, under the Bill, to he broken up and attached to some parochial centre with which they had absolutely nothing in common. In his own parish, unless some Amendment of this kind were adopted, the whole parochial organisation would be broken up and divided between three different parishes. This matter had to be dealt with, and the President of the Local Government Hoard, he understood, thought he had met the case he providing in Sub-section 7 of the clause that the County Council was to deal with the subject. A County Council might be extremely busy when the Bill passed, and these ecclesiastical districts, instead of at once taking action and establishing their own Parochial Boards, would have to wait until the Council could deal with them. They should, therefore, have the power to apply to the Council officially. The right hon. Gentleman might consider the particular provisions in this Amendment too elaborate, but lie would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the clause in the Bill did not go far enough, and that if it were passed as it stood many ecclesiastical parishes might be exposed to the risk of being left outside the great benefits of the Bill. Every ecclesiastical parish, such as the one in which he lived, which contained about 700 inhabitants, and had its separate church, schools, and clubs, ought, as a matter of right, to be able to claim that it should have its own Parish Council, and that it should be allowed to continue its own parochial life. He trusted the Government would be aide to meet the views of the Opposition in this matter.

SIR J. BIGBY

said, he quite admitted that the claim put forward on behalf of these ecclesiastical parishes had a basis of equity; but he must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment went upon the principle of enabling five parochial electors who were registered in such part of the Register as related to the ecclesiastical parish to take action in the matter, and he had been informed, and believed, that there would be no means of ascertaining that part of the Register, inasmuch as no notice of the boundaries of the ecclesiastical parishes was taken in making out the Register. That was, of course, a mere question of practicability: but there were other questions of graver import involved in this matter. The question of rating would come in, and it would be impossible for the Government at present to produce a clause which would be fair to the rest of the parish from which this ecclesiastical parish was to be for all purposes separated. Again, the Education Acts would be materially interfered with, because those Acts took no notice of those ecclesiastical parishes. If would be quite impossible to introduce rules to admit that ecclesiastical parishes should, at their own will, separate themselves from others. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman it was a somewhat enormous task to see whether the provisions of the Act of Parliament, with regard to separating parishes, had been provided for. The Council expected that every case should be carefully looked into, in order to see whether or not the provisions for separating parishes had been carried into effect. So far as regarded the operation of this Act, the County Council would clearly have power to make the separation, with the aid of the Local Government Board, and under the careful provisions contained in Section 57 of the Local Government Act of 1888. But there were many things which must be taken into consideration before the ratepayers of an ecclesiastical parish could be allowed to separate themselves. Of course, it would be possible to give them the right to apply to the County Council, but at this stage of the Bill it would be impossible to frame clauses to meet the case of their separation for all purposes.

SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N.E.)

said, he wished to say a word or two upon this question, because he was looking forward to a similar measure for Scotland. In Scotland, this principle had been applied for educational purposes with no trouble at all. There were a great number of new ecclesiastical parishes in Scotland, and it was provided by the Scotch Education Act that such parishes might be formed into separate School Board districts. Nothing could be more simple than to have the ratepayers of the ecclesiastical parish incorporated into separate lists, with the powers which the supporters of the Amendment desired, and words could easily be inserted rendering the consent of the County Council necessary where the ecclesiastical parish desired to be separately rated and to have an organisation of its own. The objection that this might be extended for educational purposes was no objection at all, but if Board Schools should become universal —which he hoped they never would— it would be perfectly easy to obtain similar provisions for additional purposes in the future introduced by such parishes as this Amendment would apply to, and which was one with which they could thoroughly sympathise with. He submitted the objections urged by the hon, and learned Gentleman were not sufficiently strong to prevent an arrangement which was eminently suited for English rural life.

MR. BYRNE (Essex, Waltbamstow)

said, the learned Solicitor General appeared to think the great objection to accepting the clause was that it would not give a discretion to the County Council to do what was desired, but as he read the clause it placed upon the County Council the duty of being satisfied the proposal contained in the resolution was desirable, and it was only in that case they were to make such an order. Therefore, it appeared to him the Amendment, as it stood, met exactly that objection. The only thing the clause really proposed was this—that there was to be a meeting, that a resolution was to be passed by a considerable majority of the electors to show that it was proper and fair, that inquiries were then to be made under the direction of the County Council, and then only if the County Council think it desirable were they to make the order. He could see no harm in accepting the Amendment, which would be a great boon to many parishes.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had failed to realise the difference in the existence of these ecclesiastical parishes which had been created by the operation of the Bill of his own Government. As a matter of fact, they were now creating in the different parishes an absolutely new system of parochial administration. In many of these ecclesiastical parishes the circumstances were these: They had a civil parish, and circumstances had led to the creation of one or more ecclesiastical parishes within the area of the civil I parish. The operation of this Bill, taken in conjunction with the provisions of the Act of 1888, would lead to this state of things: On the appointed day the group of separate parishes, constituted by the civil parish and the ecclesiastical parishes which were its offshoots, would be called upon to re-elect a Parish Council, and then that Parish Council would be able, under the Act of 1888, to make a presentment to the County Council in favour of the creation of these constituent parishes into separate parisbes for the purposes of parochial administration. What the Amendment asked was something greater and more complete—namely, that where a parish believed it had a right to a separate existence, and justice would enable that to be done, there should be machinery which would immediately enable the parish to become a separate area of local administration. That would not be the effect if the Government relied on the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1888. The Act of 1888 did for the first time confer on the County Council the power to deal with these boundary questions whore necessary, but the Act did not give any incentive to the County Council to deal with them, for it did not confer on the separate parishes any part of the administration, so there was no object for the County Council lo deal with these somewhat difficult questions. It was possible that there would be opposition on the part of the mother civil parish to the separation of the ecclesiastical parishes, and, therefore, the task of the County Council in deciding would be a very difficult one. The principle of the Bill was that every parish should have a separate local administration; the House from the first had condemned the scheme of grouping parishes; yet the result of the present provisions of the Bill would be that where ecclesiastical parishes had grown up within the area of the civil parish they would practically he grouped for the purposes of a Parish Council. In enforcing the principle that every village community should in future have a system of Local Government similar to that enjoyed in the towns, the Government had made separate parishes of different and often minute portions of the same parish. But the ecclesiastical parish was to be excluded from separate existence, although in many instances it was more important than the original civil parish. It was desired by those who supported the Amendment merely to throw on the County Council the onus of inquiry, and of making such orders as they deemed desirable in reference to the question. The County Council would hear the evidence upon both sides, and would come to such a conclusion as they thought right in the circumstances. No difficulties would be met with under the Amendment that were comparable to those which would arise under other | clauses of this Bill, lie had received representations from various quarters to the effect that if they were going to create Parish Councils they must do so, not by adopting what was technically a parish, but what was in reality a parish, so as to give every village community possessing the requisite population either a Parish Council or a parish meeting. Me was sorry that the Government had announced their inability to adopt the Amendment. The Solicitor General had said that even if the Government had been willing to accept the principle of the Amendment they would not have time to incorporate it in the Pill, lie, however, would respectfully submit to the Government that if they approved of the Amendment in principle they should take the proposal into their favourable consideration, and should cause the necessary amending words to he inserted in the Bill in another place.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member fur St. George's (Mr. Goschen) did not put the matter on the same grounds as the hon. Member who had just sat clown, for he wanted to give power to the ecclesiastical parishes to take the initiative. The hon. Member who had just sat down had taken a different view. They could not accept the proposal to give to the parish of its own accord the right to alter its boundary and deal with its own rating power. What they had done was to put. into this clause this power— Where the alteration of the boundary of any parish, or the division thereof, or the union thereof, or the parish thereof with another parish seems expedient for any of the purposes of this Act provision for such alteration, division, or union may be made by an order of the County Council, confirmed by the Local Government Hoard, under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888 There were most difficult questions of rating and other matters that would have to be considered, but if a proposal were made in another place to give the initiative power to the County Couucil to take certain evidence they would be willing to look upon that favourably. Elsewhere steps should be taken to make sub-section (7) of this clause more workable and practicable, and if that wore done he thought it would reasonably meet all that was required.

SIR J. GORST

said, that in the great hurry of carrying this Bill through the Committee he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have fully studied the Amendment. The demand made by the Amendment exactly carried out what the right hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to accept. The Amendment did not give the ecclesiastical parish any power to settle its own boundaries, but it, gave this very power of initiation which the right hon. Gentleman approved: all that the Amendment did was to say that the ecclesiastical parish might set the County Council in motion; that it might pass a resolution resolving that it was expedient that it should be made into a separate parish; that the County Council should take that into consideration; and, if satisfied that the proposal contained in such resolution was desirable, that then it, should proceed to make the; order to to carry it into effect. He really thought that if the right, hon. Gentleman looked at the proposal in a benevolent spirit, he would see it was really what he had sketched out as being prepared to accept elsewhere.

* MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS (Notts, Mansfield)

said, he objected to the Amendment upon the principle that these ecclesiastical parishes had been created solely for ecclesiastical purposes. What hon. Members opposite were contending for was that the civil parish in the future should be built up upon ecclesiastical lines. That seemed to him to involve an important, but, at the same time, so objectionable a principle, that he hoped the Government would not consent to the Amendment in any form.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he was afraid that the word "ecclesiastical" in the Amendment had raised up some prejudice, but the point at issue was this: In different large parishes in the country, villages had sprung up which had been converted into ecclesiastical parishes, and it was sought to give these ecclesiastical parishes a power of setting the County Councils in motion to inquire and determine whether these ecclesiastical parishes should remain separate parishes 1'or the purposes of this Bill. He thought that the object might be accomplished in another place by amending Sub-section (7) of this clause. By a modification of that sub-section it appeared to him that the County Conned might be set in motion, and that all that was wanted was to allow of the grouping of the new parish by taking in one part of a parish with part of another parish or parts of other parishes.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, that this was a matter which affected the rural life of England very much more than was commonly supposed. What was asked for by the Amendment was that the arrangements of the future should be more consonant with the arrangements which practically, though not technically, existed now. The rating difficulties could not be insuperable, since the Government had already proposed in some eases to recognise these ecclesiastical parishes. Unless this matter were now taken in hand and dealt with the new arrangements would be stereotyped, and the old parishes, with all their inconveniences, would be made into areas without the present conditions being taken into consideration.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 27, line 26, after the word "unions," to insert the words,—" Where an Older altering the boundary of any parish or the division thereof, or the Union thereof or of any part, with another parish is proposed to he made, notice thereof shall, a reasonable time before it is made, be given to the Parish Council of that parish, or if there is no Parish Council, to the parish meeting, and that Parish Council or parish meeting, as the case may be, shall have the right to appear at any inquiry held by the County Council with reference to the Order, and shall he at liberty to petition the Local Government Board against the confirmation of the Order."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

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

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting after "made," in line 8, the words "after the appointed day." He remarked that the Amendment of the right bon. Gentleman referred to authorities which would not be in existence until after the appointed day, and the insertion of the words proposed was, therefore, necessary.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line 3, after the word "made," to insert the words "after the appointed day."—(.Mr. H. Hoblimise.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

The Amendment standing in my name is not really mine, but an Amendment prepared to meet the objections of hon. Members who thought that notice should be given. I think it would be much better to insert the words proposed by my hon. Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

moved to amend the Amendment by inserting— After the first "meeting," in line 5, "the Council of any district in which any parish may be affected by the Order is situate. He said, that as the clause stood it referred only to Parish Councils and parish meetings, but the alterations made might affect urban districts, and he thought therefore that they also should have notice.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, In line "5, after the first word "meeting," to insert the words "the Council of any district in which any parish may he affected by the Order is situate."—(Sir F. S. Powell.)

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

MR. H. H. FOWLER

This is rather an exemplification of the old saying about giving an inch and taking an ell. I cannot dream for a moment of extending the proposal any further. The Amendment was conceded on the ground that the Parish Council will be a new body which may not be aware of what is going on. The idea that the District Council with all its organisation will not be aware of what is going on is inconceivable. The introduction of the words proposed would only complicate the machinery.

Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Words, as amended, inserted.

Other Amendments made.

MR. DODD (Essex, Maldon),

on behalf of Mr, Storey (Sunderland), moved— In page 30, line 8, after the word "property," to insert; the words "nor shall a woman be qualified in respect of the occupation of any house in which she and her husband reside.

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

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

said, he should rather have expected that under the circumstances of the ease his hon. Friend (Mr. Storey) would have taken the trouble to move his own Amendment. After the repeated declarations his hon. Friend had made on the subject, it was a very extraordinary course of procedure on his part to absent himself when the matter was under discussion. He should also have expected that the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would have at once indicated the view of the Government. He (Mr. M'Laren) desired to otter the strongest opposition in his power to the Amendment. If, as he understood, the Government intended to incline favourably towards the Amendment he considered that they were going to be guilty of a very serious breach of faith. The clause now under discussion had been before the House in various forms no fewer than four times. On every one of those occasions the Members of the Government had spoken, but no indication whatever had been given that they intended to accept such a limitation as was now proposed. When the Parliamentary compact was made by the President of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Gentleman indicated the nature of the Amendment he was going to move, but did not suggest that any restriction of this kind was intended. The right hon. Gentleman said that the object of the Amendment would be to remove the disqualification of marriage, and the House had every reason to expect that he would have carried out that declaration. A subsequent alteration was made to the effect that the husband and wife should not vote in respect of a joint occupation, and he (Mr. M'Laren) made no objection to it. The only Amendment he had made objection to was that of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), who, first of all, tried to allow a husband and wife to vote as joint occupiers, and divided the House on that question. That hon. Member had now gone on exactly the opposite tack, and was asking the House to prevent a wife voting for the house in which she lived with her husband. As during none of the four previous Debates had the Government given the slightest indication that they were going to adopt this restriction, he deliberately said that the House was now being subjected to a breach of the bargain that had been made. The Government had entered into an undertaking in the face of the House as to the nature of the clause that was to lie inserted. Having kept him (Mr. M'Laren) to his part of the bargain, they were now going deliberately to break that bargain on the present Amendment. When he advised his hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) the other day to withdraw his new clause— a clause which he himself entirely approved of, and which a large number of Members would have voted for had it been pressed to a Division—the President of the Local Government Board accepted his assistance in obtaining the withdrawal of the proposal. The right hon. Gentleman and he had a talk about it, and the right hon. Gentleman assured him that he would carry out his bargain. If he (Mr. M'Laren) had supposed for a moment that the shameful and most unfair restrictions proposed by the present Amendment would have been accepted by the Government, he would never have advised his hon. Friend (Mr. Atherley-Jones) to withdraw his clause, and he would have fought the principle of equal treatment of men and women at every opportunity. Having made a fair and honourable bargain with the Government, however, he obtained the withdrawal of his hon. Friend's clause, and the onlyresult was that the proposal which had been agreed upon was now to be abandoned. It was not carrying out the intention of the Instruction. On the 9th of the month the President of the Local Go- vernment Board, on the new clause of the hon. Member for Durham, said that— The Instruction to the Committee empowered them to deal with the question of female suffrage, and to do that in the broadest possible manner. And the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in concluding the Debate after another speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, endorsed that, and said that The Government had given an undertaking to carry out the judgment of the House, and having given that pledge they were bound by it. Well, in accepting the present Amendment, on which the right hon. Member did not lay much stress, he was asking the House to reverse its former judgment, and abandoning the position on which he had made a Parliamentary compact. He (Mr. M'Laren) hoped the House would not be guided in this matter by the hon. Member for Sunderland, who had only been consistent in one thing—namely, in uncompromising hostility to the Amend- | merit introduced into the Bill. The hon. Member now proposed that no married woman should have a vote when her husband lived in the same house with her. He was endeavouring to prevent her from voting even for a house which might be absolutely her own. ["No!"] Yes; the words of the Amendment were— Nor shall a woman be qualified in respect of the occupation of any house in which she and her husband reside. Under this proposal, even if living in her own house, a married woman would not be entitled to vote for it if her husband lived with her. That was most unfair, and was never contemplated when the clause was originally before the House. In a case in which the wife was the owner of freehold property in which she and her husband resided, the husband was said to be the tenant-at-will, but he might be turned out at a day's notice by his wife, and" the house might be sold over his head. Yet she was not to be allowed to have a vote for that house, according to the Amendment of the hon. Member. The hon. Member said he wished to prevent the creation of faggot votes. The hon. Member would allow the husband to have a faggot vote at the expense of his wife, but he would not allow the wife to have a legitimate vote for her own house, much less a faggot vote. There was no consistency in that. There was no care taken to prevent faggot votes being created in the case of sons. A father might put a dwelling-house in his son's name, and no objection would be taken, but if he put it in the name of his wife this difficulty was raised. This, in fact, was an attempt to' withhold from married women that justice which was extended to them in the Instruction, and in Clause 32, which provided that marriage in the case of a woman was to be no disqualification from voting. If this Amendment were carried it would mean the abandonment of that principle. They would be creating a disability in the case of married women which would not exist in the case of any other class. A single man might create a faggot vote for his mother, or his sister, I or his daughter, or his mistress if he had one, but they would not allow him to let his wife vote in respect of the house in which he lived, even though that house might be her own. Nothing more unfair than this Amendment could possibly be conceived. It was not a question merely of creating faggot votes. No one wished to create such votes. They were all anxious that those persons properly entitled to vote should be allowed to exercise the franchise. It would be said that this was a question of the rich against the poor, but that was not the case, as he would demonstrate by giving one or two instances. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Divide!"] There were some women the manufacturing districts with ne'er-do-weel husbands who themselves earned the wages to keep the family going. Such a wife might take a cottage at 5s. a week in her own name and pay the rent, her husband living on her earnings, and yet the Amendment would prevent her voting for the cottage. In the same way a sailor's wife who took a cottage in her own name would not be allowed a vote in respect of it if her husband was home more than four months in the year. And the same thing applied to small shopkeepers. There was reason to complain that the Amendment was sprung upon the House at this stage and had not been moved on Clause 32, or when the whole of this question was settled on the 21st of November. He hoped that if the Amendment were accepted at any rate the Government would not "tell" for the hon. Member. Let the hon. Member for Sunderland find his own Tellers and conduct his own Division, so that the House might be free to vote in any way it thought fit. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would be the more ready to do that, because he had told him that, while he intended to accept the Amendment, he did not attach much importance to it, and that if it were lost he would go on with the Bill just as if nothing had occurred. He (Mr. M'Laren) therefore hoped that no pressure would be put on hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House to vote for the Amendment, because he considered the Amendment a breach of faith destroying the benefits of the clause, and thought it a most regrettable; thing that the Government should have lent itself to the proposal.

MR. GOSCHEN

When the Opposition assented to the view that we might hope to close our labours to-night, we certainly did not lay our account with a Debate on female suffrage, and with speeches of the importance, and above all the length, of the oik; to which we have just listened. If we are to conclude the Bill to-night it will be impossible to carry on a Debate on female suffrage. The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to have understood from the President of the Local Government Board that he would assent to this Amendment. That is a matter which has struck us with extreme surprise. We understand that this matter has been four times dealt with in Committee, and that so late as Tuesday last the Government gave their final decision on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition considers, and has communicated that decision to me, that it would be a district breach of an implied understanding if the present Amendment were accepted. I may say that I am a consistent opponent of female suffrage in any direction. I am thoroughly opposed to it, but that would not induce me to vote for the Amendment, which I consider draws a most unfair distinction. There is a good deal of work still undisposed of on the Paper, and I will appeal to the House whether we are to embark at this stage upon even so interesting a discussion as that of the enfranchisement of women.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I must ask hon. Members not to take as literally true all the statements made by the hon. Member for Crewe. I regret that I have not time to reply in detail to the remarks the hon. Member has made upon the conduct of the Government. He, perhaps, put it too strongly when he said the Government would have accepted this Amendment. What we were prepared to do was to leave it a perfectly open question. But the Opposition have acted honourably and fairly by the Government all through the later stages of this Bill, and if the Opposition regard this as the introduction of fresh matter, which would require to be discussed at great length, I am sure that no man will be more ready to respond to the appeal from the Front Opposition Bench than will the hon. Member for Sunderland. I may say, for his comfort in the matter, that the Solicitor General does not regard the words as making any serious change, but at the same time they raise complicated legal questions which would involve the House in a long dispute, and therefore I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

MR. STOREY

said, he had lost some right which he had possessed, because he was accidentally absent when his Amendment was reached in Committee, and he was obliged to an hon. Friend for proposing it for him. He would not trouble the House at any length, but he wished the House to realise what his Amendment sought to do. The Bill said that no woman should be disqualified by marriage from being on the Register, and he entirely agreed with that. The hon. Member for Crewe yelled at him and said he was opposed to it; but he could remember the day when the hon. Member for Crewe was not interested in the subject and when he was as he was still. He had no objection to married women being on the Register provided all married women were to be equally entitled to be put upon the Register. But the rich man who had a house and a cottage could put himself on the Register for the cottage and his wife as the occupier of the house, and thereby get two votes in his own household; but the poor man, who was just as good a man as the rich man, and had as great an interest in local government, had only one cottage, and thus could got no vote for his wife; and thus Mr. and Mrs. Plantagenet would got two votes while Mr. and Mrs. Smith would have but one. He warned the Liberal and Radical Party, who believed in equality of treatment for all parties, that they wore creating mischief for themselves. He would not withdraw the Amendment, but in the circumstances he would allow it to be negatived.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 33, page 30, line 21, leave out "said," and after "electors," insert "for the parish. Clause 34, page 31, line 39, after "shall," insert "save as otherwise provided by this Act.

* MR. STRACHEY

moved— In Clause 35, page 32, line 6, to leave out the words "or other aims. He put the Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of eliciting an explanation as to whether the words "or other alms" would disfranchise men who had received relief from funds raised for the relief of workmen locked out or out on strike. There was anxiety as to whether the words would disfranchise the thousands of colliers who had been assisted during the recent coal strike. He believed that those who would have to carry out the Act would have a difficulty in knowing what the words "or other alms" meant.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 35, page 32, line 6, to leave out the words "or other alms."—(Mr. Strachey.)

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

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, that whatever might be the effect of the words, they were already law in regard to Parliamentary, County Council, and municipal elections, and that was a sufficient excuse for retaining in this Bill words which were in existing Acts. If the words were struck out, men who were disqualified to vote at Parliamentary, County Council, and municipal elections, would be capable of holding office as Parish Councillors. It was not easy to say what their precise meaning might be in any and every case. There had not been unanimity in the decisions of the Law Courts. It had been decided in one case that the term only applied to parochial alms, but in other cases it had been held that it might apply to subscriptions which were contributed for the purpose of keeping poor people off the poor rates.

* SIR C. W. DILKE

said, that the words "or other alms" appeared in the Reform Act of 1832, which embodied them from earlier provisions that probably went back into the mists of time. The words had been the subject of a most conflicting series of legal decisions; but in ordinary practice no objection was taken to any person being placed upon the Register on the ground of his having received alms other than parochial alms. For instance, in 99 cases out of 100 people who were actually living in almshouses were allowed on the Register. It might be said that hospitals were included in the words "other alms," but over 800 inmates of the Chelsea Hospital were on the Register. It was not a question of very great importance. He, however, thought that it would be better to omit words which might cause great difficulty in the case of Rural Parish Councils.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he entirely agreed with the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. There was considerable difficulty in interpreting the words. They might be held to cover a case which was very common—namely, the case of clothing distributed throughout the whole parish, each individual taking his turn in the receipt of a cloak or coat in the year, and in such a case the words would have a most unfortunate result.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

We accept the Amendment.

COMMANDER BETHELL

thought that they ought to have some further legal interpretation of the meaning of the words from the Law Officers of the Crown. The Solicitor General had said they ought to be kept in, and he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 32, line 19, leave out the second "or. Line 20, leave out "as follows," and insert "that. Clause 36, page 33, line 29, after the first "shall," insert "if willing. Line 30, leave out "if willing. Line 34, after "Council," insert "or parish meeting. Line 38, after "Council," insert "or parish meeting. Line 39,after "Council," insert "or meeting. Line 41, at end, insert "and where there is no Parish Council, a casual vacancy in the office of chairman of the parish meeting shall be filled by the parish meeting. Page 34, line 3, leave out "becomes," and insert "become. Clause 37, page 34, line 12, after "shall," insert "notwithstanding anything in other Act. Line 15, after "seconder," insert "and no more. Line 19, at end, insert—"(iii.) for preventing an elector at an election for a parish divided into parish wards from subscribing a nomination paper or voting for more than one ward.

SIR R. TEMPLE

moved a fresh paragraph (vi.) authorising the Local Government Board to frame Rules for fixing the scale of expenses to be incurred in any elections under this Act. The object of the Amendment was to enable those who were engaged in the elections to be remunerated on a fair scale, and to secure this remuneration should be fixed on an uniform scale in all counties alike. If it was not fixed by the Local Government Board it would be fixed by the County Councils, with the result that there would be one scale of payment in one county and another scale in another, and the interests of a very meritorious class—the clerks of Boards of Guardians, who had served their country well, might be injuriously affected. On behalf of these clerks he made an earnest appeal to the Minister in charge of the Bill to accept the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 34, line 27, after the word "electors," to insert the words,—"(vi.) for fixing the scale of expenses to be incurred in any elections under this Act.

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that they had had a great many discussions on this question of expense, and if there was anything upon which the House was unanimous it was that the scale should be fixed by the County Councils and not by the Local Government Board.

* MR. W. LONG

said, that uniformity was no doubt desirable, but not so much as economy, and the County Councils would fix the scale better than the Local Government Board.

Question put, and negatived.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 34, line 33, after "adaptations," insert "alterations and exceptions.

MR. DODD

proposed in the same clause and the same line, After "Rules," to insert "and to the provisions for reference of questions to the Local Government Board now existing or hereinafter contained. The object of the Amendment was to give power to the Local Government Board in disputed cases to decide, in order to avoid the expensive and complicated procedure for trying Election Petitions, whether a particular person was or was not properly elected. Some simple machinery was necessary both in the interest of economy and common sense.

Amendment proposed, In page 34, line 33, after the word "Rules," to insert the words "and to the provisions for reference of questions to the Local Government Board now existing or hereinafter contained."—(Mr. Dodd.)

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

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, that the point would be covered by the words "adaptations, alterations, and exceptions." It was quite a novel thing to have such words as his hon. and learned Friend proposed in Acts of Parliament, and he did not think there was any reasonable ground for supposing that the Local Government Board could not do any one of these things by rule.

MR. DODD

said, that by leave of the House lie would like to ask whether the Local Government Board would have power under the clause to arbitrate in the matter?

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he understood that the proposal was that the Local Government Board should have power in some cases or all to adjudicate, but he could not conceive that under the words "adaptations, alterations, and exceptions" such power would be given. He did not discuss the question whether it was a prudent thing that this kind of duty should be imposed on the Local Government Board. The House was bound by the judicial utterances of the Solicitor General, but it seemed to him a strong statement that under the words "adaptations, alterations, and exceptions" the Local Government Board could decide the question of an improperly conducted election.

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight had properly caught his observations. He did not see what was to limit the power of the Local Government Board under this clause, because the Act itself provided that the Rules framed by the Local Government Board should be valid if in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and should have effect as if enacted in the Act. It might be said in the House that the Local Government Board had gone too far in the rules which they might frame, but he did not see how the validity of any of their rules could be called in question.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE

said he understood the Local Government Board proposed to take powers to exclude from this Act a very large number of cumbersome provisions with regard to elections, and it was satisfactory to know that the machinery of election under the Act would be simplified and cheapened by the Rules which the Board would lay down. The only other question was whether the Board would take similar powers under this Act of determining questions of disputed elections, or qualifications, as they had in the case of the election of Guardians.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was certainly not the intention of the Local Government Board to undertake the duty referred to by the hon. Member, nor did they contemplate the making of any Rules for the purpose. They would get rid of a great deal of expensive machinery and very largely reduce the cost of elections, but they had no intention of undertaking the trial of Petitions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 34, line 34, leave out "but," and insert "Provided that (a). Page 34, line 39, at end, insert "and; (b) Section 37 of 'The Municipal Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1884,' shall apply as if the election were an election mentioned in the First Schedule to that Act. Page 35, line 5, after "adaptations," insert "alterations and exceptions. Page 35, line 25, after "Guardian," insert "or member of any such Local Board or Vestry as aforesaid.

SIR R. TEMPLE

moved to leave out Sub-section (8) of the clause. This Amendment travelled the same ground as the Amendment which he had last moved, and he therefore would not repeat his arguments. He would only make one remark. The right hon. Gentleman had based his opposition to the Amendment on the ground of economy, but it was a well-known fact that a Central Authority always worked on uniform and economic grounds in such matters.

Amendment proposed, in page 35, line 37, to leave out Sub-section (8).—(Sir R. Temple.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (8) stand part of the Bill."

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he would not repeat what he had already said against the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. FULLER

moved— In page 35, line 37, after "shall," to insert "subject to the provisions in the Fifth Part of the First Schedule of this Act. He said, the object of the Amendment was to decrease the expenses under the Bill. The scale of election expenses varied in different counties to an extraordinary degree. The scale should be high or low, according to the number of electors on the Register. It should be low in small or poor parishes, and greater in large or rich parishes.

* SIR J. GOLDSMID

I rise to Order. You have put the sub-section, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, therefore, it cannot be amended.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

That is so.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 38, page 36, line 1, after "meeting," insert "or at any poll consequent thereon. Clause 40, page 36, line 26, after "or," insert "to the. Clause 41, page 36, line 35, at end, insert—"In a rural parish the power of making an application or passing a resolution given by Section 12 of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,'and by Section 41 of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1876,' to the Electing Body mentioned in the former section shall be transferred to the parish meeting of the parish, and shall in cases under the latter section be exercisable by the like majority of the parish meeting, and, if a poll is taken, of the parochial electors, as is required by that section in the case of the said Electing Body, and Rule 2 of the Second Part of the Second Schedule to the former Act with respect to the passing of such resolutions shall not apply. Clause 44, page 39, line 5, leave out "directs," and insert "direct. Clause 45, page 39, line 26, after "purpose," insert "other than the raising of any loan or the making of any rate or contract. Line 30, leave out the second "a," and insert "the. Clause 47, page 40, line 22, after "up," insert "yearly to the 31st day of March, or in the case of accounts which are required to be audited half yearly, then. Page 40, line 35, leave out "or of a rural district. Page 40, line 38, at end, insert "or parish meeting. Page 40, at end of clause, to add the following sub-section:—"(4) Every parochial elector of a parish in a rural district may without payment inspect and take copies of and extracts from all books, accounts, and documents belonging to or under the control of the District Council of the district. Clause 48, page 40, line 40, after "1875," insert "so far as that Schedule is unrepealed. Line 40, leave out "relates," and insert "relate.

MR. COURTNEY

moved— In Clause 49, page 41, line 36, to leave out from the word "county" to end of Sub-section (2), and insert the words "shall, in the case of any parish entitled to elect more than six Guardians, divide such parish, if not already so divided, into wards so that no ward shall be represented by less than three or more than six Guardians. The object of the Amendment was to make imperative a duty which under the Bill as it stood was left optional to the County Council. He thought the duty referred to should be imperatively imposed on the County Council.

Amendment proposed, In page 41, line 36, to leave out from the word "county" to end of Sub-section (2), in order to insert the words "shall, in the case of any parish entitled to elect more than six Guardians, divide such parish, if not already so divided, into wards so that no ward shall be represented by less than three or more than six Guardians."—(Mr. Courtney.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'may for the purpose' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that so far as large districts were concerned, he was entirely with his right hon. Friend that a division should take place. But that would not be the case in a large number of parishes, for the number of Guardians that might be assigned to a parish might render it extremely difficult to do what the Amendment proposed. The County Councils had ample powers to do what was right in each case, and they might be trusted to carry out the provision.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 41, line 37, after "Councillors," insert "in cases where they retire by thirds. Page 42, lines 18 to 24, leave out Sub-sections (4) and (5). Page 43, line 1, after "local," insert "and personal. Clause 51, page 43, line 30, after "for," insert "the purpose of. Page 43, line 32, leave out "like security," and insert "security of the like fund or rate. Page 43, line 33, after "for," insert "the purpose of.

On Motion of Major Darwin, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 44, line 6, at end, add "Where a rural district is situate in two or more counties a Parish Council complaining under this Act may complain to the County Council of the county in which the parish is situate, and if the subject-matter of the complaint affects any other county the complaint shall be referred to a joint committee of the Councils of the counties concerned, and any question arising as to the members of such joint committee shall be determined by the Local Government Board, and if any members of the joint committee are not appointed, the members who are actually appointed shall act as the joint committee.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 52, page 44, line 10, after "thereof,' insert "and shall continue as a separate body as if this Act had not passed. Clause 54, page 44, line 24, leave out "same. Clause 55, page 44, line 65, leave out "scheme. Clause 57, page 45, line 42, after "Parish Council," insert "or in the Chairman and Overseers of a rural parish. Page 46, line 7, leave out Sub-section (2).

MR. DODD

moved— In page 46, line 16, after the word "decision," to insert the words, "and if any other question arises or is about to arise under or with regard to the provisions of this Act, or any right or interest or matter there under, such question shall, at the request in writing of the parties thereto, or of such of them as may appear to the Local Government Board to be necessary parties, be determined in the first instance by the Local Government Hoard, subject to the like appeal within three months after such decision. The object of the Amendment was to prevent excessive litigation under the Bill, by giving power to the Local Government Board to act as arbitrators in all matters arising out of the Act subject to the written consent of the parties concerned. He hoped the Minister in charge of the Bill would not meet the Amendment with the non possumus that the Local Government Board could not possibly undertake those duties.

Amendment proposed, In page 46, line 16, after the word "decision," to insert the words, "and if any other question arises or is about to arise under or with regard to the provisions of this Act, or any right or interest or matter there under, such question shall, at the request in writing of the parties thereto, or of such of them as may appear to the Local Government Board to be necessary parties, be determined in the first instance by the Local Government Board, subject to the like appeal within three months after such ilecision."—(Mr. Dodd.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, that this matter had been the subject of discussion for a long time, and he hoped the House would not make any alteration as regards the tribunal which had already been decided on to adjudicate in these cases. The Local Government Board could not possibly undertake to do everything of a judicial as well as of an administrative character under the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 46, line 16, to insert the following sub-section:—"(3) An appeal shall, with the leave of the High Court or Court of Appeal, but not otherwise, lie to the Court of Appeal against any decision under this section.

MR. CONYBEARE

proposed to add at the end of Clause 61— Provided that due and sufficient notice of all the arrangements proposed to be embodied in any such Provisional Order shall first be published in the several parishes before their adoption by the Council of the Scilly Isles. The object was to ensure the due publication in the several parishes of the Scilly Isles of any action intended to be taken under the clause. He had received complaints that the Council of the Isles, which met in St. Mary's Island, did what they pleased without consulting the ratepayers of the other Islands. He thought that that should not be allowed with regard to matters arising under the clause.

Amendment proposed, In page 47, line 9, after the word "accordingly," to insert the words "Provided that due and sufficient notice of all the arrangements proposed to be embodied in any such Provisional Order shall first be published in the several parishes before their adoption by the Council of the Scilly Isles."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

regretted that his hon. Friend had not placed the Amendment on the Paper in time to be examined carefully. The clause had been settled by those acquainted with the local circumstances of the Scilly Islands. He approved what had been said as to notice being given, but he could not accept the Amendment off-hand. If the hon. Member would kindly send the Amendment to the Local Government Board he would examine it and see whether it could be inserted in another place.

MR. CONYBEARE

said, he had not had time to put the Amendment on the Paper. He thanked the right hon. Gen- tleman for his promise and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 62, page 48, line 10, after the word denomination," to insert the words, "The expression 'the Church' means the Church of England as by law established"—(Mr. Carvell Williams.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

SIR R. WEBSTER

could not conceive why the Government were going to accept this Amendment at the last moment.

Hon Members: Why not?

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the clause related to buildings erected at the cost of members of any one denomination, and yet it was proposed to say that, for the purpose of the Bill, "the Church" should mean the Church of England. The hon. Member had not suggested a reason why these words should be inserted. Would any Member of the Government give a reason?

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, the words used in the Bill were "the Church."

SIR R. WEBSTER

Where?

* SIR J. RIGBY

In half-a-dozen places. It was simply intended that the words "the Church" should be defined as meaning the Church of England.

SIR J. GORST

said, the definition was unnecessary, as the phrase "the Church" was universally taken as meaning "the Church as by law established." If the Church were disestablished it would then be necessary to have these Definition Clauses. An Amendment of this kind could not be admitted into the Bill without long Debate.

Question put, and negatived.

Amendment proposed, In page 48, line 12, after the word "are," to insert the words "or the separate distribution of the benefits of which is."—(Mr. Egerton Allen.)

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

MR. W. LONG

asked what was the meaning of the Amendment?

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, it was designed to meet the case in Pembrokeshire which had been considerably discussed in Committee; a case in which a charity was distributed over four parishes, three of which were close together, and the fourth of which was 20 miles away.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the words of the Amendment seemed to him to confuse the matter.

MR. EGERTON ALLEN

said, the Amendment would cover the case of a charity in Pembrokeshire, which in the opinion of the Charity Commissioners was a separate parochial charity, as it was administered by a separate local Governing Body. The charity was distributed over four parishes, and the only thing in common between the parishes was the root or source of the income. For the convenience of keeping the charity together that income was managed by a body of trustees which had nothing—or, at any rate, very little—to do with distributing the funds. The trustees received the rents and, having received them, handed them over in certain definite proportions to the four different parishes, where they were administered by the officials of the parishes solely for the benefit of the parishioners. One parish had nothing to do with the other. [Cries of "Agreed!"]

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 48, after line 18, to insert the words "The expression 'rateable value' means the rateable value stated in the valuation list in force, or, if there is no such list, in the last poor rate.

SIR R. TEMPLE

said, he begged to move an Amendment to Clause 66. The clause empowered the Council to do various things, which included the appointment of returning officers. If that was so, the words in the clause that he proposed to omit were superfluous. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had an Amendment on the Paper the meaning of which was the same as his (Sir R. Temple's). The right hon Gentleman's Amendment said, after "officers," insert "required by Rules under this Act." If the right hon. Gentleman would insert after the word "required" the words "to be made by them," that Amendment would suffice.

Amendment proposed, In Clause 66, page 49, line 13, to leave out the words "including the appointment of returning officers."—(Sir R. Temple.)

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

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he could not accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 66, page 49, line 13, leave out "the," and insert "any. Line 13, after "officers," insert "required by Rules under this Act. After line 13, insert,—"(2) Of the Guardians and Urban and Rural District Councillors first elected under this Act, save as hereinafter mentioned, one-third as nearly as may be shall continue in office until the 15th day of April 1896, and shall then retire; and one-third as nearly as may be shall continue in office until the 15th day of April, 1897, and shall then retire; and the remainder shall continue in office until the 15th day of April, 1898, and shall then retire. (3) The Guardians and Rural District Councillors to retire respectively on the 15th day of April, 1896, shall be the Guardians and Rural District Councillors for such parishes, wards, or other areas as may be determined by the County Council for the purpose of the rotation. (4) Where Guardians or Rural District Councillors retire together at the end of the triennial period, the Guardians and District Councillors first elected under this Act shall retire on the 15th day of April, 1898. Line 15, leave out from "are," to "shall," in line 16, and insert "respectively to retire on the 15th day of April, 1896 and 1897. Line 30, leave out "not," and insert "for urban districts not being. Line 37, after "same," insert "and to the existing and first auditors elected under those Acts. Line 38, at end, insert "except that the date of the annual election shall be substituted for the 15th day of April. Clause 67, page 49, line 41, after "Councillors," insert "or of Guardians or of members of the Local Board of Woolwich or any Vestry in the County of London, or of auditors in the County of London. Page 50, line 1, after "Council," insert "or Board of Guardians, or such Local Board or Vestry as aforesaid. Line 2, after "Council," insert "or Board of Guardians or Local Board or Vestry. Line 3, after "constituted," insert "or there are no auditors under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, or an insufficient number, properly elected. Line 6, after "District Council," insert "Board of Guardians, Local Board or Vestry, or auditors. Line 9, after "election," insert "but a parish shall notwithstanding any such failure to constitute the Parish Council, be deemed to be a parish having a Parish Council within the meaning of this Act. Line 10, after "enactments applied by," insert "or Rules framed under. Clause 68, page 50, lines 34 and 35, leave out "continue to act," and insert "hold his office. Page 51, line 1, after "Act," insert "whether officers above in this section mentioned or not. Line 3, after "District Council," insert "or Board of Guardians or other authority whose officer the person affected is when the claim for compensation arises. Line 6, at end, insert "and any expenses incurred by a Board of Guardians in pursuance of this section shall be paid out of their common fund.

On Motion of Sir J. DORINGTON, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Clause 69, page 51, at the end add "Where, in pursuance of an order of the County Council, a Parish Council continues to maintain its own highways after the appointed day, the highway expenses shall not be deemed to be expenses of the Parish Council or of the parish meeting within the meaning of this Act.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 71, page 51, line 31, after "Union," insert "or district. Line 31, after "shall," insert "if it affects the parishes or parts for which the Registers of parochial electors will be made. Line 33, at end, insert "and any such division or alteration which after the appointed day may be made on application by the Parish Council or any parochial electors of any parish, may be made before the appointed day on application by the Vestry or a like number of the ratepayers of the parish. Provided that—

1. (a) If any County Council having any such division or alteration under consideration so direct, the lists of voters shall be framed in parts corresponding with such division or alteration, so that the parts may serve either for the unaltered parish, Union, or district, or for the same when divided or altered; and
2. (b) If the County Council making such division or alteration on or after the said day and on or before the last day of August so direct, the clerk of the County Council shall make, such adjustment of 1553 the Registers of parochial electors as the division or alteration may render necessary for enabling every parochial elector to vote at the first election in the ward, union, or district in which his qualification is situate, and in that case the said division or alteration shall be observed in the ease of that election."

Line 34, leave out from "day," to "be," in line 35, and insert "shall for the purpose of elections and of parish meetings in parishes not having a Parish Council. Line 36, at end, insert "and for the purpose of the powers, duties, and liabilities of Councils or other bodies elected under this Act, be the day on which the members of such Councils or other bodies first elected under this Act come into office; and for the purpose of powers, duties, and liabilities transferred to a Council of a borough by this Act be the 1st day of November next after the passing of this Act: and the lists and Registers of parochial electors shall be made out in such parts as may be necessary for the purpose of the first elections under this Act. Clause 72, page 51, line 38, after "may be," insert "assessed. Page 52, line 17, at end, insert, "The change of name of an Urban Sanitary Authority shall not affect their identity as a Corporate Body or derogate from their powers, and any enactment in any Act, whether public, general, or local and personal, referring to the members of such authority, shall, unless inconsistent with this Act, continue to refer to the members of such authority under its new name. Clause 76, page 53, line 17, at end, insert, "Provided that where any wards of an urban district have been created, or any number of members of an Urban Sanitary Authority fixed, by or in pursuance of any local and personal Act, such wards and number of members shall continue and be alterable in like manner as if they had been fixed by an order of the County Council under this or any other Act. Schedule 1, page 55, after line 1, insert "(f) the formation or dissolution of a School Board.

On Motion of Mr. STRACHEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Schedule 1, page 56, line 13, leave out "two," and insert "three.

On Motion of Mr. H. H. FOWLER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Schedule 1, page 56, line 30, after "meeting," insert "and every such meeting shall be open to the public, unless the Council otherwise direct.

On Motion of Sir C. W. Dilke, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Schedule 2, page 59, line 27, leave out "except so far as they relate to the election of auditors.

On Motion of Mr. J. STUART, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Schedule 2, page 59, line 30, third column, leave out "in the absence of the person authorised by law. Line 32, third column, leave out "to take the chair.

On Motion of Sir C. W. DILKE, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Schedule 2, page 59, line 36, leave out "in. Line 36, leave out the words "Vestrymen or.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I hope the House will now allow me to move the Third Reading. It can only be done by general consent, but I believe it is the general desire that that stage should be taken at once. I will not detain the House for more than a moment or two, but there are several matters on which I should like to say a word. Considerable criticism has been directed against the drafting of the Bill and against myself with reference to the large number of Amendments which have been moved by the Government. The House, I think, will appreciate the position which a Minister occupies in bringing in a large and complicated measure of this description. I should be very sorry to see the day when legislation was in the nature of an Imperial or Ministerial edict, brought in to be accepted or rejected by the House en bloc. Legislation here is by discussion and amendment. It is necessary that a Bill of this description extending over so wide an area, and cutting so deep into rural and urban municipal life, should be discussed very fully by the House, and that hon. Members should have an opportunity—and they have availed themselves of it—of suggesting various omissions and improvements. I am obliged to hon. Members on all sides of the House for the assistance they have rendered to mo. I do not desire to mention the names of anyone in particular, but there are two hon. Members I may refer to as representatives of rural and municipal government who have greatly assisted me—namely, the Vice Chairman of the County Council for Durham (Mr. Storey), and my right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke). If I had assumed the position of not listening to their suggestions I should have forgotten what was due, not only to the House, but to myself and the country. But the criticisms which have been passed have been unjust to the draftsmen of the Bill. I am officially responsible for the Bill as it stands, and I have no right to complain of any criticism on the policy, scope, or object of the Bill. That is fair public criticism, to which no one has a right to object. But the draftsmen cannot defend themselves in the House. They are the servants of both of the great Parties in the State; they drafted the Bill of 1888, and all the Bills of the late Government, as they have drafted the Bills of the present Government. Anybody brought into contact with these two gentlemen must know that they most loyal in serving the Government of which the day, and do their best to carry out the instructions which they receive. In dealing with a complicated measure of this sort they find themselves confronted with difficulties arising on the spur of the moment, and their task is by no means easy. It is impossible to carry such a Bill without a large number of Amendments. In regard to this matter, I wish to take credit not for myself, but for the draftsmen. I say they wore the draftsmen of the Bill of 1888, and it is due to them that I should state that the number of Government Amendments moved in Committee on the Bill of 1888 was within a fraction of 270, without counting purely formal Amendments; and the number which I have moved in this Bill is less than 150. The New Clauses and Schedules in the Bill of 1888 were 10; and they are 10 also in this Bill. I do not mention these figures as reflecting on the gentlemen who drafted the Bill of 1888. It was their duty to do what they did. Whatever they did was well done; and whatever Amendments were required they were not Amendments to the construction of the Bill, which remains a monument of legislative efficiency and wisdom. I hope the same observation may be made on the present Bill. I think it due to the two servants of the Crown who cannot defend themselves to make these remarks, in testimony of the admirable manner in which they have done their work. Another duty, and a personal one, is to thank hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House and of all sections of the House for the kindness and consideration which they have shown me in the conduct of the Bill, and for the great assist- ance which I received. It would be perhaps invidious to name any gentleman of so large a number. But I may be permitted to express my regret that in the conduct of this Bill through the House I have not been confronted by the eminent statesman who was responsible for the Bill of 1888. I regret Mr. Ritchie's absence from these Debates; for, though he might have been a severe critic, his great experience and his great knowledge of this intricate subject would have been of unquestionable service to the House. At the same time, I cannot help expressing are my acknowledgment of the manner in Mr. Ritchie's colleague (Mr. Long) has to a great extent led the Opposition in this matter. So far as I am aware, this Bill has beaten the Parliamentary record so far as the Committee stage is concerned. This is the 41st night of its consideration, and if I, the Minister in charge, in the long weary hours I have had to sit here, have occasionally been betrayed into any expression of impatience or irritation, if I have said anything which was not justified, or have not received Amendments with the respect I ought to have paid to them, I trust that the House will feel that it has not been from a desire in any way to be inconsiderate. I can only plead the excuse of fatigue, mental and physical, and I hope the House will overlook the fault.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. H. H. Fowler.)

DR. CLARK (Caithness)

I see upon the Orders of the Day that the first notice is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, who is to move that the Bill be re-committed.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

It is out of Order to refer to another Order of the Day when this is under debate.

* MR. W. LONG

said, he did not rise for the purpose of offering any opposition to the proposal the right hon. Gentleman had made, and he did not desire either to interfere with the harmonious conclusion of their prolonged discussion on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, apparently from his opening remarks, desired that this Bill should be fully considered by the House, and judging from his concluding remarks he seemed to appreciate the fact that the House had fully considered the proposals he had made, and he was sure that whatever some of his supporters with, less discretion might be inclined to do, the right hon. Gentleman at all events would agree that in discussing his proposals fully and fairly as they had done they had not only been discharging their duty as Members of an Opposition, but further they had been doing what the right hon. Gentleman wished—namely, as Members of the House of Commons discussing fully and freely, and when they thought necessary endeavouring to amend, the measure which had been proposed. So far as they on that side of the House were concerned they felt there was no foundation whatever for the fears that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to entertain in his remarks that he had been guilty of the slightest want of courtesy or even of consideration and of fairness. He thought whatever view they might hold on the one side or the other as to the merits of some of the proposals made they could hold but one opinion as to the courtesy, the fairness, and the strictly honourable conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. And he could safely say this—that if the right hon. Gentleman had been left in sole charge, and had not been interfered with by others, the progress of the Bill would have been more rapid, and some incidents not altogether harmonious would not have occurred. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the manner in which he had discharged his duty, and upon the conclusion of his labours. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman richly deserved the holiday which he trusted he was now about to thoroughly and completely enjoy, and he hoped during that holiday he would be able to look back upon his labours in this House with some feeling of satisfaction that he had earned the esteem of those who were his political opponents. He condoled with the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that, while lie had met with fair and legitimate criticism from his natural opponents, he had had to deal with the much more difficult question—namely, the insidious attacks of those who ought to have been his best friends and supporters. The difficulty the right hon. Gentleman had had to contend with had not been with the direct attacks of the Opposition, but with the inroads occasionally made into the Debates, especially during the Committee stage, by his Colleagues, who had not troubled themselves to pay attention to what had been going on up to a certain point when they had suddenly appeared upon the scene, and upset the arrangements which the right hon. Gentleman himself had entered into—a course of conduct which had consequently placed the Opposition in a difficult position, and naturally and properly exasperated and annoyed them. They had got over that, and he did not want to revive any of those memories. But hon. Gentlemen opposite had frequently reminded the Opposition of what took place in 1888. He ventured to say no comparison whatever could be made between the Bill of 1888 and the Bill of 1893. In 1888 the Government conceded to the Opposition certain matters which they held to be of great importance. That policy was not followed during the conduct of this Bill, and if there was any complaint as to the length of time which had been occupied it was entirely due to the fact that the Government had endeavoured to force upon an unwilling but powerful Opposition a measure some parts of which the Opposition held to be objectionable and unnecessary. The late Government were frequently told in 1888 they were wrong in taking the County Councils first, and that they ought to have begun with Parish Councils; but the Government had given the best possible proof of conversion to the views of their predecessors, for had it not been for the County Councils Act—of which they had made free use—there would have been enormous difficulty in carrying this Bill. He was afraid there might be a risk of an increase of rates under the Bill, and possibly of some friction in some parts of the country; but he hoped they might rely upon the sense of the public duty of the people who lived in the rural districts that they would accept this measure in the spirit in which the House had passed it, and by their own industry and ability remove any of the difficulties which the House might inadvertently, or even with their eyes open, have created, and that the measure might he as successful as the Government and the Minister responsible for it could hope. He was personally grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had said in reference to himself. He regretted more than could the right hon. Gentleman that the House had been deprived of the presence and services of Mr. Ritchie during the discussion on the Bill. For himself, he could only say that, so far as his action was concerned in the course of this Bill, his sole desire had been that the measure should be made so practical and simple that it could be easily carried out by those who would have to administer it. He heartily wished the Bill a successful passage, not only through Parliament, but in its course through the country, and he would be satisfied if it brought about one tithe of the blessings which right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to believe it would produce.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I made one omission. I intended to have moved that the Bill be re-committed for the purpose of the Amendment of which I had given notice; but as you, Sir, told me a short time ago that that Instruction was out of Order, I omitted to move it. Perhaps, Sir, you would publicly state from the Chair, for the information of hon. Gentlemen who considered I ought to have moved the Instruction, and to whom I pledged myself that I would do so, that you consider the Instruction out of Order.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER

I ought to say that I told the right hon. Gentleman the Instruction, in my opinion, was clearly out of Order, and after a ruling the Speaker gave upon an Instruction submitted to him when this Bill was first in Committee, I think it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that to allow the Instruction would have been to introduce into this Bill matter which is beyond the province of the House to deal with.

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

I shall not occupy the time of the House for more than a very few minutes, and I should be sorry to say a single inharmonious word at the present moment. I should desire most heartily to re-echo all that has fallen from my hon. Friend with regard to the exemplary patience, courtesy, and temper with which the Bill has been conducted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of it. But I rise, Sir, for the purpose of guarding myself against any misinterpretation as to the manner in which I receive certain Amendments which were moved, I am sorry to say, in my unavoidable absence yesterday, by the right hon. Gentleman in fulfillment of an undertaking which he and his Colleagues gave to me with regard to one clause of the Bill. I am referring to Clause 10—the New Clause inserted in the Bill, and some Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman undertook to move in consequence of representations which I made with regard to it. He offered some Amendments which were supposed to be in fulfilment. I only desire to say that, as far as I am concerned, had I been here they would not have satisfied me in the least; they would not have fulfilled the objects I had in view, and I do not consider them a concession in any degree. While perfectly exempting the right hon. Gentleman from any charge of breach of faith or anything of that kind, I wish to say they are not a fulfilment of the objects I had in view, and among the many things to be referred to another place in which various Amendments must be made to this measure if it is to be in any degree satisfactory, Amendments upon this particular point I reserve myself the right of endeavouring to secure to the fullest extent in the direction I have moved. I only want to say one other word in reference to the passage of the Bill—as to the mode and time at which it was carried. And however much we may congratulate ourselves upon getting rid of this measure and upon the approach of the time that we shall hope to enjoy a well-earned holiday, for some weeks, at all events, I desire to make my most emphatic protest against the action of the Government which has introduced a measure of this kind and carried it at a period of the Session when the House of Commons is exhausted by the labour of a sitting of 11 months ["Agreed!"] I do not care in the least for these interruptions. If I stand alone in this House to make this protest, this protest I am determined to make against the introduction of a measure of this enormous importance to the future of this country at a time when Parliament has been sitting, as I say, for at least 11 months of the year ["Agreed!"], and when part of its Members, including even Her Majesty's Government, are exhausted by the labours they have undergone [Agreed!"] I would much rather appeal to the courtesy of the House ["Agreed!" and "Order!"] I would remind hon. Gentlemen that only by consent can they take the Third Reading of the Bill. I am very anxious not to put the House to the trouble of sitting on another occasion, but if I am to be subjected to the discourtesy I once experienced on a former occasion—and only once, I am happy to say, in the whole of my career in this Assembly—I do not know what course I should think it my duty to take. I do desire to repeat my protest for the purposes of the future against the conduct of any Government—I do not care of which Party—in taking a measure of this supreme importance to the country at a period of the Session and at a time when it is impossible it can be done full justice to. Take one question alone which has been passed in a manner, I should think, unprecedented, having regard to its importance—that is, the dealings of this House in regard to the enormous question of the Poor Law. Does any Member of the House pretend that has been adequately or satisfactorily dealt with, or in a manner that will command the confidence of the country, or that enormous part of the population affected by it. I desire to say that for one even to endeavour to treat with a gigantic question of this kind at this period of the year demands the condemnation of the country, as I believe it will meet with it in future, and as I venture to think of which you will have had one pretty good specimen at all events at present. I have made my protest. I have stated to the House that upon a very important clause of this Bill—a clause which was described by two Ministers on the Government Bench its including the most important matters—and another clause which has been dealt with during these weeks, I am entirely and totally dissatisfied with the manner in which they have been dealt with on Report in fulfilment of the pledges given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. That being the case, hon. Gentlemen must not be surprised if every effort is made by gentlemen on this side of the House, in that and other respects, to accomplish better treatment for these matters in another place.

MR. GOSCHEN

I am not going to detain the House for many moments, but after the treatment which my right hon. Friend has received, I think I am entitled to say that it is from the wish of the Opposition to meet the general sense of the House that we should come to a conclusion this evening, that we consented to forego our undoubted right to have a Debate upon the Third Reading. As there seems to me some feeling that it was wrong on the part of my right hon. Friend to say a few words with reference to the general question, let me remind the House that on a similar occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then reviewed the Bill of 1888 at a late hour, and under not dissimilar circumstances from the present. I wish it to be distinctly understood—and I know this is the view of the Leader of the Opposition—that it is only out of regard for what may be called the jaded state of the House, of you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and of all those who have had to sit here during the 11 months of this Session, that we have foregone our right which we had to debate the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sure that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are fully aware that the Third Reading is intended to give an opportunity to the House to review a Bill as a whole, and to consider the changes that have been made, and I think there have been sufficient changes made in this Bill to have warranted very considerable discussion on the Third Reading. Sir, as I have said, out of regard for the general wishes of the House we have given up this occasion, but I do think we are entitled to register our protest and to point out how, even during these last two days, we have been legislating at racing speed on this Bill. To call it discussion on Report! Why it was as much as the Deputy Speaker could do to keep his breath whilst passing the various Amendments on the Paper. No, I am sure it will be felt that in these concluding days we have been debating the Bill under very great disadvantages. We have been discussing Amendments which had only been put down on the day before. We have been dealing with great questions which we have been obliged to hurry over, and I think it a very fortunate circumstance—quite apart from political questions and from the general matters of importance—that the details of this Bill may not go to-morrow to be carried out in the country without further revision of many of them by the other Assembly. I do not wish to raise any Party feeling upon this occasion. I should not have intervened at all but for the fact that the House seemed to protest against my right hon. Friend exercising his full liberty, but I do say, in parting from this Bill, we hope as cordially as any single Member on the other side of the House can that, so far as the Parish Councils are concerned, which are really the substance of the Bill, that they may gratify in every way the expectations of their authors, and may benefit those for whom they have been constructed. As to the other part of the Bill, which relates to the revision of the urban districts and the introduction of changes in the Poor Law, we are as opposed, on this last day of this Bill, as we were on the first, and we shall consider it a disaster if all these great changes should be passed as they are in the Bill without any further consideration. But so far as the conduct of the Bill is concerned, I am sure it is not necessary for me to repeat the personal compliment paid to the right hon. Gentleman who has conducted the Bill with so much ability. We are the friends of the Bill so far as the Parish Councils are concerned; we are not satisfied with the Bill so far as the Poor Law and other questions of that kind are concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.