COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 05 February 1894 vol 21 cc1-64

House again in Committee (according to Order).

Clause 11 (Restrictions on expenditure).

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, the clause as it stood appeared to refer to any single expense which might be incurred, but no doubt the meaning was total liability not exceeding the amount fixed. He moved an Amendment to make that clear.

Amendment moved, In page 12, line 21, to leave out the words ("any expense"), and insert the words ("a total expenditure"). — (The Earl of Win-chilsea.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEV)

said, the Amendment would include all expenses incurred under the adoptive Acts. The limit was 6d. in the £1 for all expenses, but it would be impossible to introduce a provision that the expenses under the adoptive Acts should not exceed the 6d., as there were many places where that sum would be considerably exceeded. To introduce those words would not work at all.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved to insert, after "threepence in the pound," the words "including the charge for any adoptive Acts." He said, that the financial question was of the gravest importance with regard to the Parish and District Councils, and he much feared that this part of the Bill might destroy the usefulness of the measure. In the House of Commons the matters of finance connected with these new bodies appear to have been discussed by only a small number of Members, only about 240 Members having taken part in the Division on this part of the subject; their Lordships' responsibility was, therefore, very great respecting finance. They all desired to make this measure as useful and beneficial as possible, and its success depended entirely on the financial position of the Councils being perfectly sound. Most of our villages, as their Lordships well knew, had been for some time, and now were more than ever, in a state of great pecuniary pressure, owing to agricultural losses. Money was very scarce, both to landlord, farmer, and labourer, and there was one universal complaint about the heavy burden of the present rates. Though in an Act of Parliament a rate of 3d. in the £1 might seem insignificant, it was to all connected with land and houses—town or country—a very serious matter. He,. and many Peers around him in the House of Commons in 1870, remembered well what passed about a 3d. education rate and Mr. Forster's Bill. Mr. Forster's words were, on several leading Debates in the Commons, that he did not believe, even if the voluntary schools were destroyed, that the School Board rate would exceed 3d. in the £1. What had been the result? He had, yesterday, consulted the Report of last year of the Education Department for the School Board rates of the two counties he knew best, and he found hardly a case of a 3d. rate; but 7d., 8d., 10d., 17d., 18d., 21d. were the figures which met his eye, and there was everywhere—besides in London—bitter complaints of the pressure of School Board rates—very different from Mr. Forster's 3d. Parliament was grievously misled in that; and if it had known to what point the rates would rise, the Education Act would never have been passed in the shape in which it did pass. The mass of those who under the present Bill would have large powers of the purse had not hitherto paid rates, but they had been assured that the reign of plenty would follow the possession by them of those powers; that there was a great reservoir of money somewhere which would flow out and fertilise the soil, and there was great cause for fear in their inexperience. He had no wish by his Amendment to prevent the working of the adoptive Acts; but, on the other hand, he did not wish to see rural localities plunged into ruin. As an example of what might occur, he would mention the case of a large country town, into the condition of which he had had to inquire, where many improvements had been hurried on at the charge of high rates. There he found that quantities of houses had become unlet, the tenants having fled from the rates; and this was the effect of too rapid improvements— excellent in themselves, but ruinous to the people. The concrete in these cases was better than abstract reasoning, so he would test how 3d. or 6d. in the £1 would affect the place he knew best—a rural parish in Staffordshire, 3,636 acres in extent, and with a population of 472, the total rateable value was £7,080, and the total rate last year was £355, so that 1d. in the £1 produced about £30. Under this Bill the Parish Council could, without the consent of the parish meeting, add £90 a year, or, with the consent of the parish meeting, £180 a year, to the present amount of the rate, and they might, in addition, authorise charges for the adoptive Acts. This was surely no slight matter with a new inexperienced constituency—and a large majority all of one class—at a moment when all were complaining of the existing rates. Again, ho would take a case quoted in one of the leading London journals: In a purely agricultural parish which bad a population of 430, and extended over 2,800 acres, the gross estimated rental of the farmers was £2,000, which, at 3d. in the £1, produced £25. The gross rental of the small tradesmen was £120, producing £1 3s. at the same rate; the rental of the rector for tithe-rent charge, house and land, was £612, producing £7 11s.5d., and that of the compound householder labourers was £252, which produced £1 15s. The Parish Council could, under the Bill, add to the rate about £34 on their own motion, or about £70 with the consent of the parish meeting. In this parish, in addition to the one clergyman, there were 16 farmers, 13 small tradesmen, 44 compound householder labourers, and consequently the whole voting power or control of the rate was in the hands of one class. A 6d. rate on the 16 farmers would amount to £48; that of the tradesmen to £2 6s.; that of the rector £15 2s. l0d.; and that of the 44 labourers £2 10s. As the power of rating would be really in the hands of one class, the necessity for caution was clear; and there should bo, therefore, as much publicity as possible in respect of the intended expenditure, and the approval of the whole parish, through a parish meeting, should be obtained before additional burdens were imposed on small rural districts. There was every reason to be careful in allowing the Parish Councils, the election of which would be entirely in the hands of one class, to levy rates and impose additional heavy burdens on the rural districts. It would be very easy afterwards to extend the rating powers if necessary; but it would be very difficult to limit them, and infinite mischief might be done in the meantime to the tenant-farmers, the tradesmen, and the labourers themselves by sanctioning these financial arrangements.

Amendment moved, In page 12, line 22.after the word ("pound") to insert the words ("including the charge for any adoptive Acts").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment would be a step not in advance, but backwards, because at present there were parishes where, under the adoptive Acts, the rate imposed was 1s. in the £1, whereas if this proposal were accepted no such power could be exercised in future and nothing could be done which would incur an expenditure of more than 6d. in the £1. Why should all such parishes be debarred from practically adopting these Acts? The noble Earl had spoken as if the Bill dealt only with purely rural parishes, but there was no greater delusion than that. When they were dealing with rural parishes as distinguished from urban parishes they were practically dealing with a large number of the small towns throughout the Kingdom. The object of the Bill was to enable their Parish Councils to exercise the same powers which had been exercised up to the present time by the ratepayers in general. The noble Lord actually proposed to deprive them of those powers and to limit them to 6d. in the £1, so that small towns with 3,000 or 4,000 inhabitants would be deprived of powers of lighting and of establishing baths and wash houses and free libraries. These were advantages which such towns might very reasonably wish to obtain, and one of the benefits that Her Majesty's Government expected from this Bill was that it would diminish the desire to form small urban districts. He thought it was a great misfortune that a number of small urban districts had been formed in the country, with sometimes only 1,200 or 1,500 inhabitants, and such parishes would be infinitely better governed under the powers provided by this Bill with the addition of such powers as could be given to them by the Local Government Board. He trusted their Lordships would not adopt the Amendment.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

explained that the noble Earl had entirely misunderstood him, for his proposal was that the Parish Council should not, without the consent of the parish meeting, incur any expense or liability which might involve a rate exceeding 3d. in the £1, including the charges in respect of any adoptive Acts that might be adopted after the passing of the Bill. His object was to ensure that the consent of the parish generally, by means of a vote of the parish meeting, after it became aware of all the circumstances of its finances, should be obtained in the multitude of small places which would be affected, there being something like 8,000 parishes with a population of only 500 and under. The noble Earl regarded this as a slight matter, and always seemed to treat the Proposer of an Amendment as an enemy to his Bill instead of being glad of assistance.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

pointed out that the noble Earl's object was already secured in the provision in the Bill that the parish meeting exclusively should have the power of adopting the Acts.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, the Acts might be adopted not this year, but five years hence. His point was that whenever, by the adoption of any of them, or owing to the interest on any loan, the rate raised under the new order of things amounted to 3d. in the £1, or by a proposed rate of the Parish Council would amount to or exceed it, the total rate payable by the parish for expenses incurred since this Act, if to exceed 3d., should not be raised without the consent of the parish meeting.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that was a more extraordinary proposition than the other. What reason was there, when the Acts were adopted, why the rate should not be raised without going to the parish meeting? It would be a most unnecessary restriction.

*EARL FORTESCUE

said, the Lord President had triumphantly established the necessity for dealing somewhat differently with small country towns with 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants and rural parishes of between 200 and 300. The Earl of Harrowhy had shown conclusively that the powers given by the Bill as it stood would be vested practically in many places in those who paid no rates and had had no experience of parochial matters. What security was there that in some rural parish where the agricultural labourers had found it difficult to get employment they might not start works of excavation on a comparatively gigantic scale—for example, a swimming-bath, not so much for purposes of swimming as to provide work at the expense of the rates to which they did not contribute? Various Members of Her Majesty's Government had betrayed profound ignorance on the subject of rural affairs, rural administration, and rural life. The President of the Local Government Board had said that "compound householders paid their rates in their rents." Rural cottage rents were not raised as successive School Board demands and other requirements of the Legislature were made, and the greater portion of them were not sufficient to defray the interest on the money laid out in building them, besides providing them with a quarter of an acre or so of ground, as was done by many, if not most, landlords; to say nothing of the annual cost of repairs.

*LORD NORTON

said, that Lord Harrowhy had not alluded to the additional powers given of raising loans as well as all other purposes for rating. There would be but little connection among the throe sets of Councils as to what each was doing in the way of borrowing, and there would be no means of knowing what was the aggregate debt incurred.

LOUD BELPER

said, as the clause was drawn any expense which the parish might go to would include the adoptive Acts, as they were not specifically excluded.

THE EARL or KIMBERLEY

said, the words in the Bill were that the expenses should not exceed 3d. in the £1 for local expenses in any financial year.

LORD BELPER

said, the clause should he put in the plural—"expenses or liabilities." Upon the question whether the 3d. in the.£l was too much or too little it was very difficult to express an opinion. Probably the amount should be more in the larger than in the smaller parishes.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

would not like to change the language without consulting the draftsman of the Bilk Clearly, all expenses and liabilities were intended. He would draw attention to the point.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

did not understand why the Lord President had not accepted his Amendment to insert "total expenditure" instead of "expenses."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

had taken the Amendment to include the expenditure under the adoptive Acts.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

thought Lord Belper was quite right in saying that the words of the clause would include the expenses or liabilities under the adoptive Acts, and therefore that the Parish Council would be obliged to obtain the consent of a parish meeting. That interpretation seemed to' be irresistible, comparing the words here with those which followed in line 28, where "expenses under the adoptive Acts" were specified. He could not help feeling serious apprehension as to the consequences of giving all the Parish Councils such very large powers of expenditure. It was a rock, which might in some places destroy the good effects of the Bill. No doubt the Government had in view both semi-urban and purely rural parishes, but the two classes would not be in the same situation. By divorcing the liability to pay rates from the power of imposing them a risk might he incurred of these Acts being rashly and hastily adopted in unsuitable parishes. Of the five adoptive Acts three were absolutely without limit to the expenditure which might be incurred—the Lighting and Watching Act, the Baths and Washhouses Act, and the Burials Act; the Free Libraries Act being limited to 1d. in any one year, and the Public Improvements Act requiring that half the cost should be raised by-private subscription or donation. It was obvious that as those Acts gave borrowing powers largo expenditure might be incurred. Again, many rural parishes were very large, and lighting and watching or burial ground expenses incurred for one portion would have to be contributed to by the rest. The Government had favoured the views of the London County Council as to betterment; but no trace of it was to be found here:—the expenditure would be thrown equally upon agricultural parts of a parish which derived no benefit from it directly or indirectly. Agricultural districts were greatly depressed, and the present rates were a heavy burden upon them. To drive away the fanners would certainly not in the long run benefit the labourers they employed. Both the numbers employed, and the rate of wages, might in the result be affected. All those considerations seemed to have been inadequately regarded in giving universally such very large and unlimited powers of expenditure.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said. those were objections, whether valid or not, to the existing law, the only change made being in the body which could adopt the Acts. Any parish in the country might take advantage of them. This Bill merely transferred to the new authorities—the Parish Councils—the powers now exercised by other ratepayers voting generally. Some years ago, in his own parish of 10.000 inhabitants, a, small town of 2,500 in the middle of it, the rest being rural, desired to adopt one of the Acts, but the rural voters at a distance were not likely to be benefited, and they voted by a large majority against the proposal. That was the difficulty at present under these Acts. This clause merely carried out the existing law in a more convenient and desirable manner.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, that was hardly correct. The power of adoption was now given to ratepayers, but this Bill proposed to give it to a preponderating majority of non-ratepayers.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

explained that his object was that, the new rates, however raised, should not be increased beyond 3d. without the previous consent of the parish meeting.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, no loan could be raised for these purposes without the approval of the County Council; and without that consent, therefore, it would be impossible for these bodies to take any step under the Acts.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

desired to add to his Amendment the words "which had been adopted after the passing of this Act."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

suggested that the Amendment should be brought up on Report. He was not quite certain whether the words might not practically enlarge, instead of restricting, the powers of the parish with regard to expenditure.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

asked whether Lord Winchilsea also withdrew the next Amendment?

THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, as the clause stood there was absolutely no limit to the power of rating conferred on Parish Councils if the adoptive Acts were included, but he was willing to withdraw his Amendment also, if the noble Marquess desired it, to leave out "other than" and insert "including."

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, he would not move his Amendment raising the same point, to insert— In page 12. line 30, at end of line ("or a sum equal to a rate of 1s. in the £1 on such rateable value including expenses under the adoptive Acts whichever of such sums shall be the less").

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE MARQESS OF SALISBURY'

moved to omit from the clause the proviso that the expenses of any Parish Council and of any parish meeting, including the expenses of any poll, should be paid out of the poor rate. This point had already been under consideration by the House. It raised the question of the compounder once more. The peculiarity of the compounder was that he paid no rates, and, therefore, if he voted for an increase of rates, he would vote for what he had not to pay and for an expenditure which he would not himself feel. He did not think there was any evil to be apprehended—rather the reverse—from the fact that these Parish Councils, so far as finance was concerned, would be in the hands of comparatively poor men; on the contrary, in dealing with rates, poor men were disposed to be more economical than richer men, because they were not afflicted with that peculiar kind of theory which was called a fad. They would deal with proposals as matters of business, and they might generally be trusted to cultivate economy, on one condition—that they themselves felt the result if economy were not practised. On that one condition it, might be safe to place those rates in their hands. It was important that these Parish Councils should not, at the outset of their career, and especially before their members had become accustomed to public affairs, become extravagant in dealing with the funds at their disposal, and that they should not permanently burden the parishes with obligations beyond their means. It would be said that the Parish Councils were prohibited from incurring expenditure that would involve a charge going beyond the 3d. rate. That was a statement which he could not understand, because it seemed to him to be at variance with another part of the Bill. They had surrounded the power of acquiring land compulsorily with all kinds of safeguards, but it would be a mistake on that account to think that the compulsory hiring of land would be an ordinary process. His impression was that the process would not only not be compulsory in many cases, but it would be exactly the reverse, and there would be owners and occupiers pressing upon Parish Councils to take over their land on lease for 14 years. Was there any landowner listening to him who would not be glad if he could to secure for 14 years a fair rent from a tenant to whom he would not be bound to make remissions, who would not make any appeal to him for mercy or forbearance, for whom he would not have to incur any expenditure, and who could not throw the lease on his hands? He believed considerable pressure would be put upon Parish Councils to take land in this way; and in the Bill there was no limit upon the amount of land they might take so long as they took it by agreement; there was no supervision over them and there was no chock upon their doing it. While a Parish Council might by ordinary expenditure run up to a 3d. rate, they might hire a large quantity of land for 14 years at a certain rent, thinking that they would be reimbursed by letting it out in small quantities. But there was no security that agricultural labourers would go on taking it. Their doing so would depend upon its proximity to their dwellings, and these they might change. It seemed to be thought that there was a considerable number of labourers anxious to have each his three acres and a cow, but some of them might go away to another parish and be followed by railway men or tradesmen, who would not have leisure to cultivate land. Some of the holders might fall into difficulty and lose the cow; prices might be bad, or seasons might be bad; and for one reason and another it was possible that the cottages contiguous to the allotments might be taken by labourers who would not be willing to hire the allotments and reimburse the Parish Council the rent they would have to pay. This was a possible source of extravagance against which the parish was not protected; and unless the Parish Council was animated by a desire for economy the parish might be involved in serious difficulty and embarrassment. The remedy for these things was to be found not in restriction, but in taking care that the members of the Parish Council and the parishioners should have every motive for economy. That motive was taken away from them by relieving them from the payment of rates, and, therefore, he asked their Lordships not to pass this portion of the clause, which would bring these new parish rates under the compounding law. His Amendments did not touch the expenditure for the poor or any existing rate; all that they did was to provide, as regarded this new rate, that the persons spending it should themselves be interested in economy, and should feel the results of any mistakes they might make. Speaking on a large scale, there was no serious danger attaching to these Parish Councils except that tendency to extravagance which haunted all Public Bodies, and it could be checked only by a strong and persistent feeling of private interest. He concluded by moving the omission of the words which made the expenditure of the Parish Council payable out of the poor rate.

Amendment moved, In page 12,line 34, to leave out from the word ("Act") to the word ("where") in line 86.— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

did not know whether the noble Marquess intended to move the later Amendment by which compounding would be put an end to altogether. However, he would confine himself for the moment to the present Amendment, proposing to create a separate rate to provide for the expenses to be incurred under the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

did not propose to create it, but to prevent Her Majesty's Government from abolishing it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment would apply only to parishes in which there was a Parish Council, and where there was not it would make no change. The Bill simply preserved that which existed, and left compounding untouched. The noble Marquess proposed that this rate should be levied separately from the poor rate. That proposal appeared to involve a direct infringement of the Privileges of the other House by imposing a new rate for carrying out the provisions of the Bill. Unless he entirely misapprehended the course taken by the House in the matter, this would be regarded as a glaring infringement of the Privilege they had always asserted. But, discussing the Amendment on its merits, it would introduce an extraordinary state of things. In urban districts throughout the Kingdom compounding would be continued: in the rural districts, as defined in this Bill, it would cease: and many of these rural districts included urban areas. There would be this anomaly: that there would be towns of 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants in which compounding would not be allowed, and towns of 1,200 or 1,500 in which it would be allowed. Why was there to be this extraordinary distrust of the people living in rural districts as compared with the people living in the urban districts? He had lived in agricultural districts all his life, and he had felt that agricultural labourers were to be trusted not less than artizans in towns. If he were to state his own sentiments he had more fear of the artizans of the towns becoming revolutionary than he had of the agricultural labourers. He could not conceive why this stigma was to be put specially upon one class. Then the levying of a separate rate would involve great difficulty and expense; and experience had shown that compounding was called for in the public interests, because in the case of small properties the collection cost more than the rates amounted to. There could not be the slightest doubt that in a, considerable number of cases in which they were not paid householders would be unable to vote. Thus, by one stroke, a large portion of the agricultural population would be cut off from taking any part in the management of their own affairs.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

No.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Most undoubtedly.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Other people's affairs.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, according to that doctrine, why have Parish Councils at all? Why not declare that the clergyman and the landlord should manage the parish? If the people of a parish were not concerned with the affairs of the parish unless they owned property in it, then logically parish affairs ought to be placed solely in the hands of the owners of property, and all other people left without any share in them at all. He repeated that if their Lordships passed the present Amendment they would disfranchise in parochial matters a large portion of the agricultural labourers throughout the country. The noble Marquess said the other day that the Government was bidding for the support of the agricultural labourer. If he wished to secure the vole of the agricultural labourer he should desire nothing better than that such a clause as the noble Marquess proposed should be inserted in the Bill.

٭LORD MONK BRETTON

submitted that the Amendment, if carried, would constitute an infringement of the Privileges of the other House, because it appeared to involve the creation of a new rate. It plainly affected the persons to pay the levy and the collection of the rate.

*THE PAUL OF CRANBROOK

was sorry to differ from so great an authority as the noble Lord, but he could not agree that the Amendment of his noble Friend would create a new rate. The rate was already (treated by the Bill, as was clear from a later part of the section, and the question was the peculiar mode adopted to pay it. He deprecated the imputing of prejudices on one side or the other injurious or in opposition to the interests of the agricultural labourer. The one important question was, in giving these new Councils, to place the new Councils on a sound foundation. There was nothing hostile to principle when laying down the extent of expenditure to which the parish should go in saying that the people themselves who voted for it should bear a part of that expenditure.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:— Contents 53; Not-Contents 120.

*THE EARL OF ONSLOW

moved an Amendment the object of which, he explained, was that the expenses of the Parish Councils and parish meetings, including the expenses of. any poll, should not be assessed equally upon all classes of property, but should he levied upon the same basis as special expenses for sanitary improvements under the Public Health Act, in regard to which certain classes of property were assessed at a lower rate than other property in the same parish. The expenses to be incurred under the present Bill would be essentially for the benefit of the inhabitants and not of the property in the particular place in which they were expended. They would be of the same character as sanitary improvements, and ought, therefore, to be assessed upon that basis and not on the principle of the assessment of rates for the relief of the poor.

Amendment moved, In page 12, line 36, to leave out the words ("paid out of the poor rate") and insert the words ("special expenses within the meaning; of the Public Health Act, 1875, and such of the provisions of Sections 229, 230, and 231 of that Act as relate to special expenses shall apply to the expenses of a Parish Council and parish meeting under this Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the special expenses were for sanitary purposes. The Parish Councils, except for dealing with open drains and ponds, were really to have no sanitary powers, and he saw not the slightest reason why the whole property in a parish should not be equally assessed for this purpose, and he could not, therefore, accede to the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the noble Earl was using very indignant language that evening; but whatever argument might be raised against the Amendment, the farmers had a very strong opinion about the matter, and its, after all, they were the people who paid, they should not be treated with contempt.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

supposed everybody would desire to escape payment of rates if they could, and, therefore, he would not say anything against the farmers' desire in that direction. But the question was not as between class and class, but simply whether the expenses should fall generally upon the parish. He did not know what their Lordships' experience might be, but he himself held a strong opinion that in the country the rates fell upon the landlord and no one else.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, this was a serious matter, but he hoped to convince their Lordships' minds that it was more simple than it appeared. The principle was that the rate should fall on the class of property which benefited by the expenditure. How was it conceivable that agricultural land, as land, could benefit by any single one of the expenses in question? He trusted it would not be considered a breach of the Privileges of the other House if their Lordships were to devote some little time to the careful consideration of this matter, seeing that in the House of Commons the subject was only debated for half-an-hour, and was then withdrawn under threat of a Saturday Sitting, while on Report it was only discussed for about an hour and a-quarter. The President of the Local Government Board said this was an exceedingly small matter. He thought it was a very serious one for the farmers, and there had been meetings of farmers all over the country to protest against the rating under the Bill as it stood and against any other rendering of the clause than to make these special expenses under the Act as tending to throw an unfair burden upon agricultural land, which already bore an undue proportion of local expenses. The farmers generally would be the largest ratepayers. He thought the Amendment deserved their Lordships' favourable consideration.

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON)

failed to understand how the noble Earl who had just spoken could argue that expenditure by the Parish Councils would not be expenditure in which all the inhabitants of the parish were equally interested.

THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

had not said anything of the kind. The inhabitants might be interested, but the land was certainly not.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

supposed, when the noble Lord spoke of laud, he meant the human beings connected with it—the owner or occupier. The land itself, of course, had no interest at all. He did not understand the argument. It would next be said that the School Board rate was not one to which the poor rate assessment should apply. This was really a question as to whether the whole population of a parish were or were not interested in the improvements which might be carried out by the Local Bodies under the Bill. All were equally interested in expenses of this description, whether landowners, occupiers, or labourers, and the rate ought to fall equally upon them all.

*THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK

considered that the Amendment could not come in here, and it also went too far. The noble Earl opposite could not wish the whole of the expenses of the Parish Council to be treated as special expenses, but the Amendment would have that effect. There were sonic expenses of the Parish Council which ought, undoubtedly, to be considered as special expenses, and he was at a loss to understand why the Government would not apply the same principle to Parish Councils as they proposed to apply to District Councils. The effect of the Bill as it stood would be to allow a parish in which there was a small town to drain and give a water supply to that town, and to charge the expense upon the whole area of the parish, which might include a large agricultural district, so that a farmer of 200 acres at the extreme end of a parish would have to pay the same rates as the inhabitants of that town. That would certainly not be an equitable proceeding; and to avoid that, it was necessary, in some way or other, that the provisions which existed in the Public Health Act should be applied to the expenditure of Parish Councils.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

stated that under the existing law special expenses did not apply where the rate was less than 1d., nor where the expenditure was under £10. The intention of the clause was not to take away from the District Council powers exercised by them, but merely to give certain small powers to the Parish Council. They might utilise a well, spring, or stream, and could deal with an open ditch, pond, or drain—cover it over and prevent it being obnoxious. Small matters of that kind might be dealt with by the Parish Council.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

was unable to follow the argument. The expenses might be divided into two parts: those called into existence under this Act and those coining under the adoptive Acts, which would be provided for in the same way as at present, according to the 6th sub-section. It seemed perfectly clear that these words would not affect expenses under the adoptive Acts.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it would be a more logical process, if it could be carried out, to divide the parish where one part of it was not interested in the expenditure. He concurred in what had been said by the Earl of Northbrook—that some of the adoptive expenses clearly belonged to the whole parish. For instance, they could not say that one part of a parish was more interested in the provision of a burial ground than another. People must be buried, whether they lived in a town or on the land: but in other matters of expenditure the parish ought to be divided. There was another consideration. Their Lordships had had a, statement from Lord Monk Bretton, who was a great authority on these subjects, that what they were doing a, short time ago was contrary to the Privileges claimed by the House of Commons. That was denied by other noble Lords, and it was a matter of controversy; but this seemed to be distinctly contrary to the Privileges of the other House, and, therefore, he should not be disposed to go further in that direction, because whatever their Lordships might wish, if it were contrary to the Privileges of the House of Commons it would not be passed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, with regard to the division of parishes, there were several subsequent clauses dealing with that subject, and it would be more convenient that it should be dealt with later.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Verbal Amendment.

THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, he had an Amendment; but if it were held to be a breach of the Privileges of the other House he would not move it, though the farmers of the country were in an unfortunate position by being placed in the hands of Irish Members, who would lay down the principles by which they should be rated.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

was afraid the noble Lord sitting below the Gangway would look askance at his next Amendment.

Amendment moved, In page 13, line 8, to add the words ("The said rate shall be paid directly by the occupier and in respect to it the provisions of the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, Sections 3 and 4, shall not apply"). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 (Borrowing by Parish Council).

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

had an Amendment in line 18, to insert the words "not exceeding 30,"but would not move it.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, his next Amendment was to secure that a full account should be submitted, showing the amount of loans chargeable on the parish. His object was to secure that before fresh loans were sanctioned the fullest information should be given. Local indebtedness was a very serious matter, and it was very important that those who had to sanction loans to Parish Councils should be placed in possession of full information as to the indebtedness of those bodies. From a comparison which he had seen, he learned that between 1874–75 and 1890–91, while the National Debt was reduced by £84,000,000, the Local Loan Debt was increased by £109,000,000. Hence the necessity for careful examination in regard to all local loans. Many authorities were, no doubt, in favour of piling up debt for useful objects, and thought that for desirable objects there should be no hesitation in raising money by loan; but he took a totally different view, and thought that every care should be taken now, with the present outlook and the great uncertainty as to the future of English laud. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would assent to the Amendment.

Amendment moved, In page 13, line 30, at end of sub-section (1) insert—"Provided that the County Council shall not give their consent to any loan under this section until they have had submitted to them a statement in the prescribed form, showing the amount of all outstanding loans chargeable on the parish or on any part thereof, or on any larger area including such parish, whether contracted by the Parish Council, the District Council, the School Board, or any other Local Authority."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Local Government Board considered all applications for loans, and he had never heard that they discharged their duty without proper information. The noble Earl would excuse his saying that he could not conceive a more grandmotherly proposal than to prescribe to the Local Government Board and the County Council that which was their obvious duty. The proposal, in his opinion, would hamper these bodies, and would give no real security, though no doubt the intention was good.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

agreed that the Amendment would tend to hamper the action of the Local Government Board, who at present held inquiries at which everybody concerned had an opportunity of being heard, though probably the decisions gave dissatisfaction to the parties who did not agree to them. That was intelligible enough.

*EARL STANHOPE

said, the County Council was not in the same position as the Local Government Board, and he thought it desirable that the duty of the County Council in this matter should be clearly laid down. If the County Council did not insist on ascertaining in all cases local indebtedness, it ought to do so. By adding these few words, omitting the Local Government Board, the County Council would be saved considerable correspondence. If it was enacted that before application for a loan to the County Council a full statement of liabilities should be made, as a matter of course applications for loans would be much expedited.

*THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

, as being Chairman of a County Council, would object to tying down the County Councils. They were perfectly competent to make these inquiries, and to satisfy themselves that the evidence placed before them in support of an application for a loan was sufficient.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he was quite ready to leave out the words "Local Government Board." He only desired that those who applied for loans should have to state their own indebtedness in black and white. Their Lordships were dealing with some 13,000 or 14,000 newly-elected bodies, and some careful and sure provision should be made for showing the local indebtedness before loans were sanctioned. He was willing to limit the application of his Amendment to the County Council.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

EARL STANHOPE and LORD DE RAMSEY

did not move Amendments to the same effect, which were (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved, after Clause 12, to insert a new clause on the subject of compounding', providing that no Order should be made under 31 & 33 Vict., c. 41, sec. 4, after the passing of this Act. The effect of this proposal, he said, would be that things would remain as they were, and that in no parish where the Compounding Act had not already been applied would it be applied in the future. The noble Earl opposite, after his usual fashion, had tried to represent that in making these proposals noble Lords on this side of the House had a special mistrust of the agricultural labourer. The question had nothing to do with the agricultural labourer: it had reference to the extreme smallness of the Local Bodies by which the spending would be done. He repudiated the notion that he had any special class reference in the observations he had made or in the provisions he had moved. This Motion, to prevent the further application of the Compounding Act in places where it had not already been applied, depended so entirely upon the same considerations as had already been pressed upon the House that it was only now necessary to move it.

Amendment moved, After Clause 12 to insert as a new clause—"No Order under Section 4 of the 32 & 33 Vict., c. 41. shall be made after the passing of this Act; and any existing Order made under if shall cease to be in force is respect to any owner six months after he has given notice to the Overseers of his desire to be exempted."—(The Marquess of Salibury.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

objected to the Amendment as being beyond the scope of the Bill. The Bill did not relate to Municipal Councils or to the Parliamentary franchise: but the clause was of general application. It was ruled in the House of Commons that no such Amendment could be proposed, on the ground that it limited the operation of the Act of 1869, which was not in the contemplation of this Bill at all.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, it would be easy to meet that objection by adding after "made" in the clause the words "by any Parish Council." Looking at the qualification for the Parish Councils as it now stood in the Bill, it would be most extraordinary if they were at liberty, being, perhaps, themselves compound householders and not directly rated, to exempt from the obligation of paying rates any number of persons in the parish not otherwise exempt, and not coming within the voluntary part of the Compounding Act.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he would move it in that form.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that alteration would no doubt limit the application of the clause, but it would create this extraordinary state of things —that in by far the largest part of the country and in all urban districts, small or great, the power of compulsory compounding would be retained, while those districts in which there was a Parish Council would be placed in an entirely different position. He said that the clause was directed against the agricultural labourers, because he apprehended that they would form the bulk of the electors in the rural parishes, and would therefore feel the effect of the proposals of the noble Marquess.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not care from what class the electors were drawn: if they were Peers he should equally object. He should object to three Peers having the power to embarrass a parish for a, considerable time by financial blunders, unless they themselves felt the results of their own extravagance.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, he understood that the proposed clause would not apply in places where a Compounding Order already existed. Compounding existed very widely, and the effect of the Amendment would be to put a very limited part of the country in a different position from all the rest of the country in regard to this matter. He could understand arguments against compounding altogether; but was it not capricious to divide and draw a line between places where there was now compounding and say they were to remain its they were, but that where there was no compounding at present there should be none in the future?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he admitted that there would be great anomalies if the Amendment was carried; but there were great anomalies now, and it was impossible to escape from them, He agreed that the question of the compounding law was one which a future Parliament ought to take up, but He was going as far as he could. He had had it impressed upon him from so many quarters — Chambers of Agriculture, and County Councils, and so on— that the power of compounding ought to be stopped, that he felt bound to submit the Amendment to the consideration of their Lordships.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he felt it his duty to point out what took place in 1867 and 1869. The Conservative Government which was in Office in 1867, in their Reform Bill, put an end to compounding, but. the result throughout the country was such that in 1869 it was found absolutely necessary to repeal that enactment, He earnestly asked their Lordships whether it was in the smallest degree likely that they could put an end to compounding? The noble Marquess, as he understood him, touched this matter as part of the larger question, but Parliament had once tried to interfere with the system of compounding, and while he admitted that there was a good deal to be said about the consequences of compounding, yet, upon the balance of convenience and inconvenience, it was found by Parliament absolutely necessary to maintain the system of compounding. It was his firm conviction that, if ever the question came to be examined as a whole, Parliament would be obliged, as in 1869, to confess that it was impossible to set aside the system.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, that if any one proposed to abolish compounding generally, he should certainly go into the same Lobby with the noble Earl: but it appeared to him that there was a good deal of difference between compounding generally and compulsory compounding. With regard to compulsory compounding, the Bill was now making an enormous difference, by putting into the hands of persons, a majority of whom might possibly be compound householders themselves, the power of putting that system into force. That was not the present state of the law, and it was a difference which made it desirable not to confide that power to the Parish Councils; and inasmuch as the Amendment would only affect cases in which it had not been exercised for more than 20 years, it might be assumed that no practical reasons of convenience had required it within that period. Therefore, their Lordships would not be introducing any anomaly comparable with that of taxation on a large scale without representation.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

Do I understand that the noble Marquess has accepted the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend (the Earl of Selborne) as to the alteration to be made in the Amendment?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes, I have accepted it.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, it seemed to him to be very doubtful, in view of the fact that the question of compounding would come under consideration at a later stage in connection with the clause dealing with the administration of the Poor Law, whether it was worth while to insist, upon this limitation, as the Amendment, as altered on the suggestion of his noble Friend (the Earl of Selborne), only referred to the power of Parish Councils. In populous districts where the population was constantly increasing the necessity for compounding might be felt, and the noble Marquess's Amendment would prevent anything except voluntary compounding.

LORD PLAYFAIR

said, that the clause would really abolish the compound householder in the future altogether. As the result of the abolition of compounding, referring to past experience in the matter, in 1867, in one borough alone 87,50!) summonses for rates were issued in one year, so great were the distress and misery in the country. The landlords found a clause in the Act of 1867 under which an agent was empowered to pay the rates for the tenant, and they constituted themselves agents for their poor tenants. By the year 1869, compound householders had increased all over the country in consequence of this evasion of the law, and no one at that time spoke so forcibly upon the matter, and showed so clearly the evils that would arise from the abolition of compounding, as the noble and learned Earl (the Earl of Selborne), then Sir Roundell Palmer. He said— The absurdity, therefore, of requiring payment to be made by the tenant's own hand is not entertained by the law as it now stands, and will not be with respect to £10 houses after the Bill passes…The essence of the thing is that the rate shall be paid; if paid, it is un important by what hand the payment is made, and to introduce this test as a qualification for the franchise is. I venture to say, a simple absurdity…It is monstrous that you should disturb and unsettle contracts and economical arrangements made for the greater advantage and convenience of the parties interested in local taxation under laws passed for that purpose, merely to discover a mode of impeding and restricting the operation of a new Parliamentary franchise. That was the opinion of the noble Earl then, and, as he understood him, it was his opinion now, so long as rating was not compulsory. But he would point out that the parish might or might not adopt the power conferred by the Bill. Compounding' would be compulsory on the landlord only when the parish desired it. He admitted that there was a great deal to be said in favour of direct taxation, but it could not be carried out without disfranchising a great many people who were entitled to vote. In 1869 their Lordships were obliged to restore what they had destroyed in 1867, recognizing that their action in that year had resulted in great evils. If this proposal were agreed to, compound householders in rural districts would be unable to vote, whilst compound householders in the neighbouring towns would not be under the same disability. Would not this difference of treatment cause great discontent? Knowing by experience that the system which it was now sought to restore had formerly produced much misery and a great outburst of pauperism, their Lordships ought surely to pause before deciding to re-establish it. BY adopting Amendments of this kind they would make a very serious change in the existing franchise, and he maintained that this would be neither wise nor expedient.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

declared emphatically that he adhered to the words quoted by Lord Play fair as having been used by him in 1867, and to everything else, so far as he could remember it, that he had then said. He should oppose any Amendment which proposed to move any existing compound householder, unless at his own instance, from his present position, whether he had got into that position under the compulsory clause of the Act of 1869 or by voluntary agreement. But they were now dealing with new matters, and in the circumstances of the case he thought it right, and consistent with that general view, to hesitate as to bringing new charges within the compounding principle, or entrusting the power to rate-owners instead of occupiers, without their own consent, to a new authority, not necessarily consisting of ratepayers; because to give on a very large scale to those who did not pay rates the power of imposing them upon other people was the greater evil. A new power was being transferred to a new body.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

pointed out that the Amendment as he had moved it was only part of the Amendment as it stood upon the Paper. It was right that he should apologise to Lord Play fair for having made this change, because it bad had the result of rendering irrelevant a great part of the carefully prepared speech which the noble Lord had just delivered.

LORD PLAYFAIR

pointed out that the whole question would arise on Clause 20, and explained that to discuss a subject of such vast importance piecemeal, as they were apparently expected to do,. would be most inconvenient.

Moved new clause as amended after Clause 12 as follows:— No Order under Section 1 of the.32 & 33 Vict., c. 41, shall be made by a Parish Council after the passing of this Act."—(The Marquess of Salibury.)

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 140; Not-Contents 37.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13 (Footpaths and roads).

LORD TURING

proposed a small Amendment, to which he thought no objection would be raised. Power was given in the clause to Parish Councils to repair footpaths, and he wished to add the obligation of repairing stiles and footbridges.

Amendment moved, In page 11. line 18, after the word ("road") to insert the words ("including any stiles, gates, or foot-bridges on or across any footpath, the maintenance of which stiles, gates, or footbridges is deemed by the Parish Council to be required for the safety and convenience of the public").—(The Lord Thring.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

was afraid the noble and learned Lord would think him fond of making objections, but this was not quite a simple matter. This public had the right of passing through fences across footpaths, but it was quite a new thing to say that where difficulties of tenure arose Chancery suits were to be transferred from the owners to the Parish Councils. The Amendment would relieve owners from the necessity of maintaining proper fences, and it would enable the Council to deal with them in any way they thought proper. It was advisable, therefore, the words should not be put into the Bill.

*LORD THRING

said, it was useless for him to contend against superior power. Existing fences were sometimes repairable by the owner, sometimes by the parish, and power was given to the Parish Council to repair the fence, and to recover the expense of doing so if the owner were liable. Of course, if the stiles were not kept in order, footpaths became impassable, and it was necessary that the stiles should be maintained.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

did not quite see the force of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, as it would relieve the persons on whom the liability to repair now lay at the cost of the Parish Councils.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14 (Public property and charities.)

Verbal Amendment.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved to insert words of qualification as elected Councillors of the parish. The object was to bring the sub-section into harmony with the next.

Amendment moved, In page 14, line 35, after the word ("persons") to insert the words ("qualified to be elected Councillors for the parish").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, in small parishes there would probably be only one or two people who could possibly undertake trusteeship, and to go outside the parish would be exceedingly inconvenient. Some parishes in England had but 30 or 40 inhabitants with a single farmer. This would in such cases act as a disqualification.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, when the clause was passed any person could have been elected upon the Parish Council if he lived within three miles of the parish. It was now much more restricted, and the insertion of those words, therefore, was undesirable.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

moved to omit the words at the end of Section (2), providing that when the charity was not an ecclesiastical charity this enactment should apply as if the Churchwardens as such were specified therein as well as the Overseers. For substituting nominees of the Parish Council for Overseers, who were purely secular officers connected with the administration of the Poor Law, there seemed to be sufficient reason, but none for substituting them for Churchwardens merely because the charity was not within the definition of the Act an ecclesiastical charity. One of the Churchwardens was usually chosen by the minister of the parish and another always by the parishioners; and the authors of the trust had desired that they should have at least a voice in the distribution or administration of the charity. And why not? The clause did not go on to state that if the minister, as was most frequently the case when the Churchwardens were mentioned, was one of the trustees, the Parish Council was to supersede him and substitute a nominee of their own, because it was not an ecclesiastical charity; and he could not see why the two lay Churchmen chosen by the author of the trust to be among the administrators of his charity should be struck out because they were Church officers, and doubtless nominated as such. The reasons stated elsewhere for this extraordinary interference with the trustees perplexed him almost more than the thing itself. The main argument for this exclusion of Churchwardens as trustees had been that in a certain case which came before the Court of Chancery in the time of Lord Romilly (known to lawyers as "The Attorney General v. Calvert"), it was laid down—a most just and reasonable rule — that unless the founder of the charity said that the benefits of it were to be enjoyed exclusively by Churchmen, Nonconformists were entitled to participate. Nothing could be less relevant to the question, whether Churchwardens or other ecclesiastical officers, made trustees by the author of a trust, the benefits of which were not confined to Churchmen, should be deprived of that voice in the administration of the charity which the founder intended, and which might at least secure fair play to Churchmen. The question was not now, what should he called an ecclesiastical charity. Later in the Bill that definition would have to he considered, and it was unnecessary to anticipate the discussion now. Why Churchwardens were to he excluded from having' any voice in the distribution he failed to see. The more comprehensive and liberal the parochial system of the Church was in connection with charities the better. But why should not the officers of the Church retain their position? This singular anomaly would occur in multitudes of parishes throughout the country. Only the old parishes were dealt with in this clause. New parishes had been carved out of them having their own Churchwardens. This clause would provide that the Churchwardens of the older parishes were to he excluded from all those trusts; but not the Churchwardens of any new ecclesiastical parish. He never saw anything having less of principle in it.

Amendment moved. In page 14, lines 37 to 40, to leave out all after the word ("place") in line 37 to the word ("Overseers"), inclusive, in line 40. — (The Earl of Selbone.)

THE EARL OF KIMBEELEY

resisted the Amendment. The clause, he sub-mittee, was in strict accordance with the very principle upon which the Bill was founded—namely, that of separating the secular from the ecclesiastical charities of a parish. That had been the desire of the trainers of the Bill, and he hoped they had attained their object. The civil administration of the parish was to he a civil administration, wholly and entirely divorced from any connection with ecclesiastical administration. The noble and learned Earl objected to the exclusion of the Churchwardens, but why in the world should they be included? The Churchwarden had nothing to do with the civil affairs of the parish by virtue of being a Churchwarden. The noble Earl appeared to think that the Church was, in point of fact, co-extensive with all the members of the parish; he forgot that there were a vast number of Nonconformists in this country who by no means accepted the assistance of the officers of the Church in the administration of the parish. Nothing was more likely to cause jealousy and heart-burning in some parts of the country, or to prove more antagonistic to the just functions and rights of the Church, than that the officers of the Church as such should be thrust into the civil administration. Many Churchmen would, of course, be elected on these Boards, and they might be Churchwardens. They need not disqualify a man because he happened to be a Churchwarden. In former days it was very convenient to nominate Churchwardens, but there was not the slightest reason now why Churchwardens should he selected as trustees.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

, in answer to the question of the noble Earl as to why the Churchwardens should be included, replied—because the founder of the trust so directed. And as to the exclusion of ecclesiastical persons from secular charities, which the noble Earl seemed to regard as a principle of the Bill, he forgot that the Bill did not exclude the Minister for the time being from being a trustee in these cases; but only the lay Churchwardens.

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, this is one of the inconsistencies I most lament in this Bill. One of the objects of this Bill certainly is to make the Church wardens simply Church officers, ecclesiastical officers with no duties outside. Well, but suppose you have founders in the future as in the past who desire to commit; the administration of charities which they bequeath to the parish to Church hands. They surely have a right to do that. The Church has a responsibility to the whole of the parish which no other body has. No Nonconformist body has or has ever claimed the same responsibility with regard to all the poverty and suffering of every parish as the Church has claimed, has been allowed to exercise, and has exercised most freely. By this clause Church people who desire to leave the administration of their gifts in Church hands are positively debarred from selecting Church officers to do it. As had been said, multitudes of parishes have charities of this description. Yes, and such charities are being founded at this present day. What is the fairness of such a clause while, at the same time, the corresponding officers of Nonconformist bodies arc not excluded from precisely similar administrations? Here is an instance:—In 1886 a lady named Miss Rebecca Michelmore, who resided at Ashburton, died on January 17. By her will she bequeathed £1,000 to the Vicar and Churchwardens in trust to divide the income between 13 poor men and 13 poor women. That operation of her will, of course, would be destroyed by this Bill. The next clause in Miss Michelmore's will bequeathed £1,000 to the minister and stewards of the Wesleyan chapel at Ashburton in trust to divide the income between 10 poor men and 10 poor women. This section prevents the Church officers from continuing their administration of the trust, while the stewards of the Wesleyan chapel are permitted for the future to administer their £1,000. That instance could be paralleled in many other parishes, and it is beyond any line of justice I have ever been acquainted with.

*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

asked whether the case cited by the Archbishop would not be an ecclesiastical charity under the Bill, and therefore exempted?

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

No, it is a parochial charity given to poor persons. Both bequests are left to the poor of the parish. There is nothing to make them ecclesiastical.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:— Contents 27; Not-Contents 110.

Amendment agreed to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, ho had an Amendment on the Paper to omit Sub-section (3), but he only formally moved the omission of the first three words, in order that he might not interfere with subsequent Amendments on the Paper. This clause was not in the original Bill, and it had been introduced by a rather mutinous body of supporters of the Government in the other House. The proposal of the clause was to enable the Parish Council in the case of every parochial charity to appoint trustees enough to swamp the existing trustees. It was a very curious provision, and he doubted very much whether trustees had ever been similarly dealt with by any proposal or enactment. The object of it was to put these charities entirely into the hands of trustees appointed by the Parish Council. The noble Lord the Leader of the House asked why the Churchwardens should have these trusts, and he was very properly answered because the founders had willed it so. The question now was, why were the Parish Councils to be the masters of these trusts which were never intended for them by the founders who originally devised them. Whatever the founders had done it was quite certain that they had not intended that the Parish Councils should be the masters of such trusts. It was equally certain that in a large number of cases these donations had been made with a religious motive. It was not very common for persons who died leaving money for distribution among the poor to be actuated solely by a secular motive. It might be said that almost universally they had been actuated by religious motives. Well, then, it was contended that if that were the case some of the testators lived in a time when there was no distinction between the Church and dissent, and when, therefore, it could not be presumed that it was for the Church and not for dissent that these trusts had been founded. But a good many of these trusts were anterior to the date that was usually fixed as the date of the division between the Church and Nonconformists. In the case of the Irish Church Act, he thought that everything after the Restoration was recognised as belonging to the Church if it had been left to the Church. A great number of these trusts were intended for the Church, and were left at a time when both Churchwardens and Rectors were named and nothing but an intention to devise to the Church could be argued. It had been a very common thing in the last few decades for parish rooms, and other institutions consisting chiefly of buildings, to be founded mainly or entirely by Churchmen for the work of the parish. Yet no definite ecclesiastical designation had been attached to those trusts, because the people who established them never had any suspicion that the spoliation of the trusts would be entertained. He knew it was provided that where it could be proved that all the donors were Churchmen the buildings should not be included, but that was proof which in the nature of the case, at some distance of time, it was impossible to give. To hand over such buildings to a body which might be hostile was entirely to disregard the intention of the founders, and seriously to discourage the exercise of any liberality in the future. Of course, it might be said that in many instances the Parish Councils would not be hostile, but if the Parish Council entirely concurred with the proceedings, why did the Government swamp the trustees by the trustees appointed by the Parish Council? The very fact that they were giving the Parish Council these extraordinary and unparalleled prerogatives showed that the Government were looking to cases where the Parish Council was hostile to the Church. Wherever that was done very great injustice would be done to Church people. He believed that in the discussion in the House of Commons the idea was adumbrated that it was rather contemptible for anybody on his death-bed to leave money to a charity, and it was certainly a good way to show the disapprobation of Parliament for that mode of dealing with property to take it away a certain number of years after the testator's death. If that were really the view of Parliament it ought to be promulgated in the most definite way and in language which any one could understand, and then there would be no further bequests with which Parliament could deal; but to allow testators to go on from generation to generation leaving these gifts in the full and unbroken confidence that they would be applied by the persons designated and in the spirit in which they intended and then to bring in by a violent change the appointment of trustees intentionally fixed in number so as to swamp the trustees designated by the founder seemed to be a case of bad faith, the punishment for which would react upon the Parliament that had committed the offence, and which would discourage future gifts in a way most injurious to the interests of the poor. It was a breach of traditional policy; it was a totally unexampled measure; it was a violation of the rights acquired under these bequests, and it was a concession to a Parliamentary clique whose objects notoriously were nothing else but simple hostility to the Church. How one-sided was this legislation had been shown by the right rev. Prelate; and for the honour of Parliament, as much as for the interests of the parishes concerned, he did not think that so discreditable a clause ought to be left a part of this Act of Parliament.

Amendment moved, In page 15, line 1, to leave out the words ("In the case.").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

pointed out that the clause was based upon what had been the policy of the Charity Commissioners in recent years, and therefore, if the noble Marquess was right, the policy of the Commissioners had been wrong. But that policy was based upon the unanimous Report of the Select Committee of 1884, on which many well-known Conservatives sat. It was dictated not in any hostility to the Church or to the charities, but because the Committee believed that the charities were better administered when there was a large representative element in those administering them. He must express dissent from the view that when coals, or money or bread, were left by a benevolent person for the benefit of the parish, that they were intended as a religious charity.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not say that; I said they were given with a religious motive.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

could not help thinking that those who gave them with a religious motive would like the charity to be administered by those who were likely to make the best use of the gifts for the benefit of the parish. The noble and learned Lord quoted the terms of the Report of the Committee of 1884. In the interests of the good administration of the charity the Committee recommended a full application of the representative principle, and pointed out that they recommended it because experience showed that with that full representative element having a responsibility to the parish the charity was better administered. Acting upon these views, the Charity Commissioners had been more and more largely introducing the representative element into the management of charities. In many cases they had made the representative trustees a majority of the whole body of trustees. Therefore, this clause really proceeded upon the lines which had been adopted by the Public Body charged with the administration of justice. They had been actuated solely by the desire to have the trusts better administered. In these circumstances the strong language of the noble Marquess was hardly warranted, especially when it was borne in mind that the Charity Commissioners could only interfere where there was an application for a new scheme. There was no reason to suppose that those who supported this proposal were necessarily animated by hostility to the Church.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, it was quite true that a Committee of the House of Commons which sat some years ago reported in favour of introducing a representative element into the schemes of the Charity Commissioners.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Full.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

Well, "full" meant what was reasonable. That Committee left the question of proportion quite open; and, when a resolution had been passed in the House of Commons, in a small House, in favour of giving the elective element a preponderance in all schemes of the Charity Commissioners, a Committee, afterwards appointed, reported in effect against that resolution. It was true that the Charity Commissioners had in many of their recent schemes proposed to add an elective element to the general Governing Body of some charities. But they had by no means made it a rule to place that elective element in a majority. Only within the last few weeks, they had proposed to amend the schemes of six or seven charities in Hampshire, of one of which he was himself a Governor, by adding Governors to be nominated by the County Council; but not in any single case, he believed, so as to give them a majority, and, in the case with which he was personally acquainted, only giving them about a fourth of the whole number. He, personally, should have no objection to fair additions of this elective kind to parochial charity trusts. He must, however, protest against swamping the trusts by the nominees of a Parish Council elected annually by a popular vote, and by a constituency of whose fitness to perform duties of that kind, wisely and impartially, it was impossible hitherto to have had any experience.

*THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

said, the argument advanced, that because the Charity Commissioners had added representative trustees on some trusts the Parish Councils in future were to have their nominees placed in a majority on those trusts, was inadmissible.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I understand the proposal before the Committee to be that they shall not have power to appoint any trustees at all.

*LORD COLCHESTER

said, that in many parishes the introduction of the principle of the clause would be most pernicious. The Parish Councils under the scheme of the Bill would be able to swamp the other trustees, and they would make use of their power for political and electioneering purposes. There could be no objection, in his opinion, to giving a fair popular element. As a Charity Commissioner he had, of necessity, had to do with schemes in which it was introduced; but in the sweeping, invariable, and reckless proposal in the Bill the Government were doing a great injury to charity administration.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

Supposing this Amendment is passed, how do we stand? Is there to be no representative element at all? I do not think the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) meant that. In the House of Commons I think one-third was proposed, and it was not until late in the proceedings that a clear majority was insisted upon. It ought to be clearly understood that if this sub-section is omitted there would be no representative element at all.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If the sub-section is omitted altogether, I think that would be so.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, he would be quite content with the appeal of his noble and learned Friend to Caesar, and he would be quite content to go to Caesar as represented by the Charity Commissioners. He had not the least objection to a wise and reasonable representative element on these trusts, and, in his opinion, the Charity Commissioners had gently and wisely improved a large proportion of the trusts they had touched. But it was different thing to state that they had made a majority of the trustees. The Committee would want to know how many trustees there were originally. The Charity Commissioners had not proposed a majority of trustees in one-third of the cases. What a very different thing was the proposal before their Lordships ! The Bill would enable Councils to appoint a majority of the trustees. The Charity Commissioners had not added more than one-third of representative trustees to the original body in any of the cases with which they had dealt. Then it should be remembered that the Charity Commissioners did not do this uninvited ! The present proposal was to alter every trust in the country, and alter it by force—to crush, in fact, by representative trustees the trustee or the trustees the founder of the charity intended it to have. They had been told that tills clause had no bearing whatever on the Church. He should like to know how that could he. It was said this was so because parochial trusts were spoken of, but how very large a number of parochial trusts were vested in the minister alone ! If this clause were carried there would be two persons representing the Parish Council added to the minister, who would stand as one-third of the trust. He repeated, that he should have no objection whatever to reasonable representation such as the Charity Commissioners had adopted, but this clause appeared to him to be outrageous. He might give the ease of a large parish room which had been built by the money of two Churchmen, and the site of which was presented to the parish by another Churchman. That site and building were immediately contiguous to the churchyard, and, indeed, the only way of entering the parish room was through the churchyard. That building had been used for all manner of purposes connected with the Church, but these included a clothing club and a class for the teaching of cookery, which were open equally to Dissenters and Church people. This trust was founded in 1831. Lord Kimberley said a few moments before that everything would be saved by the 40 years' limit, but there were plenty such rooms founded more than 40 years ago, and founded solely for the benefit of the Church.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The right rev. Prelate has not informed us who were the trustees in that case.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said, this sub-section was not in the Bill when it was introduced by the Government, but was accepted by them from a private Member. The Government must have considered the matter before they introduced the Bill, and came to the conclusion that it was not wise to have this majority.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That does not follow. I remember, when the Bill was before the House of Commons, Mr. Fowler accepted Amendments from a variety of quarters.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

I propose that the noble and learned Lord should follow the example he has just spoken of, and accept reasonable Amendments in this House.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

said, it would be unfortunate if the impression went forth that their Lordships were opposed to the addition of any elected trustees, and he asked whether Mr. Fowler's original words could not be substituted for this sub-section? If it were struck out it could not be amended. The solo objection was to the question of the majority. Perhaps the Marquess of Salisbury would withdraw his Amendment to excise the clause altogether and let the Committee amend it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have no objection to a reasonable representative element in cases that will bear it; but. how are you to appoint one-third of a minister? There are many cases where the minister is the sole trustee. How are you to appoint a reasonable amount of trustees that shall not exceed one-third of him? I do not see any way to a solution of that puzzle. The Parish Council ought certainly to be allowed some discretion in the matter, but I should be better pleased if the appointment of the representative element was given to the County Councils.

On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 19; Not-Contents 80.

Words omitted.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Now I move to strike out the remainder of the sub-section.

Amendment moved, To omit the remainder of Sub-section 3.— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, the discussion showed that many of those who had voted in the majority were not opposed, in principle, to a reasonable number of elected trustees. He would therefore propose on the Report stage to move the insertion of words to provide that the Parish Council might nominate trustees who should not exceed one-third of the whole body, coupled with some special provision for the case of single trustees.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not disposed to question what my noble and learned Friend has said as to the drift of the discussion. I think all of us wish for some addition of the representative element that will be both harmless and beneficial. I shall be glad to consider the words of the noble and learned Earl, and have very little doubt I shall agree with him.

The remainder of the sub-section was then omitted.

THE BISHOP OF RIPON

moved to insert a new sub-section, to the effect that— Where the endowment of a parochial charity is applicable wholly or partly in gifts in money or kind, or for the general benefit of poor persons, the income so applicable, or any part thereof, may be applied subject to such conditions, if any, as may be, prescribed hereafter by the Charity Commissioners, by the trustees or persons acting in the administration of the charity to one or both of the following purposes:—(a) Pensions for poor persons being otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of the charity, and not being in receipt of Poor Law relief, who from age, ill-health, accident, or infirmity, are unable to maintain themselves. (b) The provision of nurses or other specific assistance for poor persons so qualified in sickness. The Amendment was one which might very well be accepted, because it asked but very little, and, in his opinion, involved no contentious matter. It would interfere in no arbitrary fashion with the future trustees of any of the charities involved. For one thing, it would tend very greatly to simplify procedure, inasmuch as at one stroke of the pen it would render the application for separate schemes unnecessary. On the merits, he stated that the sum of money available under the charities aimed at by the Amendment, and which might be distinguished as dole charities, would probably amount to not less than £365,000 a year. These dole charities were often a source of considerable trouble and mischief, and they had been denounced by Commission after Commission. The existence of those charities attracted to the place a number of people who received the precarious advantage of doles during one part of the year and were thrown by the necessity of the case upon the rates during the remainder. Such had been proved to be the case in St. Olave's parish. In one parish, where the population was 1,090, the number of recipients of these charities was 449, or 49 per cent. of the whole population of the parish, the average amount received being 2s. Another case: In a parish of 2,250 people the number of recipients was 1,090, and the average amount received by each person 7½d. In a third parish of 3,055 the number of recipients in 1891 was 1,207, and in 1892 1,500, the amounts received by each recipient being in one case 2¾d., and in the other 2d. He ventured to think that money distributed in such a fashion was not wisely bestowed. By the concentration of such funds as these much good might be done and much mischief avoided. It was a very ill-advised use of funds, and he asked their Lordships to take into consideration his Amendment. In parishes where these doles existed they became a source of attraction to classes which were not the best of the community. There was a drawing away of the population from its natural centres and an accumulation of indigent people where these very doles existed. In view of the fact that Commission after Commission had reported against these doles it was not too much to ask that something should be done at such an opportunity to put on record the opinion that this money might be spent in a manner more conducive to the welfare of the people and more calculated to elevate their character. The Amendment mentioned two objects— old-age pensions and sick-nursing—which had been prominently before the public mind of late. Complaints had been made in some quarters that the effect of modern legislation had been to withdraw the benefits of these charities from the poor. It would not be said of such an Amendment as this that its effect lay in that direction. If there were any to whom sick-nursing was a boon it was the poor, and if there were any who would profit by old-age pensions it was the industrious and hard-working people of the country. And while, finally, there was no compulsion about the Amendment, it might have powerful results by way of suggestion. Two things were needed in order that funds such as these should be rightly used— humanity and sagacity. The spirit of humanity always needed a spirit of sagacity as its ally, for humanity without sagacity was only weakness, which inquired where it would benefit, while sagacity without humanity might be harsh. Charity was full-handed amongst them, but charity was asking for guidance, and there was nothing so effective as a strong expression of opinion from Parliament. Many of their Lordships knew full well that it was guidance which charity wanted. He asked the Committee to accept this Amendment, feeling certain that from both the wisdom and philanthropy of their Lordships it would receive the consideration which it-deserved

Amendment moved, In page 15, line 28, after ("Council") to insert as a new sub-section: ("Where the endowment of a parochial charity is applicable wholly or partly in gifts in money or kind, or for the general benefit of poor persons, the income so applicable, or any part thereof, may be applied subject to such conditions, if any, as may be prescribed hereafter by the Charity Commissioners by the trustees or persons acting in the administration of the charity to one or both of the following purposes:

1. (a) Pensions for poor persons being otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of the charity, and not being in receipt of Poor Law relief, who from age, ill-health, accident, or infirmity, are unable to maintain themselves:
2. (b) The provision of nurses or other specific assistance for poor persons so qualified in sickness").—(The Lord Bishop of Ripan.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I sympathise entirely with the object which the right rev. Prelate has in view. The only doubt is whether this Amendment changing the objects of a charity comes within the scope of the Bill. If the right rev. Prelate will not press his Amendment now, and will consent to put in the County Council, we will consider whether it can come in the Bill. I agree with him that it is desirable a change should be made in the modes of administration.

٭THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

I hope the Government will see their way not only to carefully consider this question, but to accept the proposal of the right rev. Prelate.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

We will consent to it, if possible.

*THE. EARL OF WINCHILSEA

In their Report last year the Charity Commissioners proposed to divert the doles in the way the right rev. Prelate has indicated.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

Will the right rev. Prelate consider whether it would not, be well to allow some of these doles to be used for local hospitals or convalescent homes?

*VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

sympathised very much with what had fallen from the Bishop of Ripon, but did not think the subject was apposite to the Bill before the Committee. It would make an entire change in the administration of certain charities upon which there were specific Acts of Parliament guiding and directing the Charity Commissioners. Their Lordships would not know of how much they would he depriving certain charities, nor, indeed, what charities they were dealing with. Even if of injurious character there were many which were of great use, and which were never given to persons receiving or seeking parish relief. They could not deal with all these charities in the parishes throughout England without going through any of the processes which charities were bound to undergo.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I do not know that we are bound hand-and-foot to go through all the processes which are now gone through with regard to charities, but I have grave doubts whether such a question as this is suitable to be a clause in this Bill. If it is found to be within the scope of the Bill we will support it.

*THE. EARL OF SELBORNE

pointed out that the word "may" was used so that it was merely permissive—not obligatory.

*LORD HALSBURY

There is no doubt that the universality of the Motion will give the [tower of interfering with charities to such an extent that it would be hardly possible to say it is within the scope of this Bill. Some shorter mode of dealing with some charities might be worthy consideration.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Particularly with regard to small charities. That might be considered on Report.

THE BISHOP OF RIPON

I withdraw the Amendment now gladly, and will insert any phrase that will carry the principle.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

I should like to ask whether it is not the fact that this clause is intended to apply only to parochial charities and to the charities of rural parishes; and whether it would not be an improvement to put in "rural" to avoid misconception?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

But as Parish Councils are only created for rural parishes there cannot be any misconception.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

The point is, whether the Sub-sections (I) and (2) of this Clause 14 would still have application to charities which are under the charge of Municipal Bodies. Undoubtedly Suit-section (3), which has been struck out on the Motion of the Marquess of Salisbury, would have applied to charity tinder Clause 30. A case has been brought to my notice by the Corporation of the City of Bristol. There are charities which were in the hands of the Municipal Corporation, but under the Municipal Corporations Act a reform took place, and these charities were put into the hands of a body of trustees appointed by the Lord Chan-cellor. Since 1862 vacancies on this body are filled up by the Charity Commissioners. If these arc still parochial charities under the definition in Clause 69 of this Bill, the effect is this: If the Representative Body mentioned in Clause 30 makes application to the Local Government Board, and Clause 30 is applied to the county borough of Bristol, there is a fear that this body which administers the charity would have to have elected trustees put in for every one of the charities under its charge. That will cause a great deal of confusion, because there are a great many different charities, and the provisions of this Bill would not enable the county borough of Bristol to put in one set of trustees for all the trusts; there would have to be different sets of trustees. There is doubt in the minds of many whether this clause as a whole is or is not limited to rural charities as a whole.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The question of what are parochial charities does not arise here.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

But is it the intention of the Government to apply Sub-section (6) to all charities, whether they belong to parishes which are rural or not?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

It is perfectly impossible for it to apply to any place except where there is a parish meeting. The clause provides for parochial charities to be laid before parish meetings.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

withdrew the Amendment.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page l6 line 3, transpose ("and the names of the beneficiaries of dole charities shall be published annually in such form as the Parish Council, or, where there is no Parish Council, the parish meeting, think fit") to follow ("Churchwardens") in line 9.

LORD CLINTON

moved an Amendment to meet the case of a charity founded by two or more donors, one of whom might be living after the date of the passing of this Act.

Amendment moved, In page 16, line 19, to leave out the word ("charities") and insert the words ("a charity"), and leave out the word ("donors") and insert the words ("a donor, or by several donors, any one of whom is").—(The Lord Clinton.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I think the Amendment quite reasonable, and I agree to t.

Amendment agreed to.

*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

moved, after Sub-section (9), to add as a new sub-section:— The provisions of this section shall not apply to any charity, the trusts of which are administered by trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, or by their legally-appointed successors for the time being. The noble Lord explained that he brought forward this Amendment in the interest of Bristol, where there were a large number of charities administered by the Municipal Trust. As these charities were situate in different parishes the same trustees could not be appointed for all, and as the Bill stood it would, therefore, be impossible to carry on the work of the charities. The trustees had taken a legal opinion on the point, and they had been distinctly advised that this clause as it stood, with Sub-section (1) and (2) in it, would apply to the charities which were now in the hands of a body of municipal trustees. The amount of the trusts was about £25,000 a year, the greater part of which was made up of parochial charities within the definition in this Bill. The trustees feared that there would be an interference with the body of trustees which were now filled up by the Charity Commissioners. It would bo really impossible to carry on the work of the administration of these charities if they had to have elected trustees for the different charities. He hoped the Government would accept the proviso.

Amendment moved, After Subsection (9) add as a new Subsection—("The provisions of this section shall not apply to any charity the trusts of which are administered by trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Municipal Corporations Act. 1835, or by their legally-appointed successors for the time being").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I am informed that the Amendment would not be in place in the present part of the Bill. This clause relates to rural parishes, but there is a clause in the Bill where the question would arise —namely, in Clause 30, and there the question might be conveniently discussed. But in this clause it really does not arise.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

If it is really the case that it does not apply now, I shall be happy to withdraw it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I am advised that there would be no application to these charities. But if you will put it off to Clause 30, I will make inquiries and give you an answer. Then, if you are not satisfied, you can move the Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

proposed an Amendment, which he said was directed to meet the cases of non - ecclesiastical charities connected either with the Church of England, with Roman Catholics, or with Nonconformists. It was only a matter of justice that in charities of this nature, where it was clear the intention of the founders was that the money should be distributed by officers of the Church or any other religious denomination, that these charities should be exempted from the operations of this clause. He proposed that if the Charity Commissioners were satisfied, either from the instrument creating the trust or otherwise, that it was the intention of the founders that the charity should be distributed through the agency of the officers of the Church on other religious denomination, the charity should remain in the bands of that religious communion, in which, according to the testimony of the body in all England best able to decide the matter—the Charity Commission—the donor intended. This appeared to be a matter of simple justice, and affected alike all Religious Bodies. He urged the Amendment strongly upon the Government.

Amendment moved, After Sub-section (9) add as a new Subsection— ("This section, with the exception of Sub-section (1), shall not apply where any parochial charity is vested in the minister, or minister and officers, either of the Church or of any other religious denomination, and the Charity Commissioners have certified that they are satisfied, either from the terms of the instrument creating the trust or from other circumstances of the case, that it was the intention of the founder or founders that the charity should be distributed through the agency of the officers of the Church, or other religious denomination, as such").—(The Earl of Har-rowby.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

As I understand it, this is a proposal to exempt all charities which are vested in these particular persons, whether they have any ecclesiastical character or not.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, there would be no change made. The Amendment said the Charity Commissioners must be satisfied— That it was the intention of the founder or founders that the charity should be distributed through the agency of the officers of the Church, or other religious denomination, as such.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

As such.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, a clause had been inserted in the Bill which wits intended to exempt all charities which had an ecclesiastical character. That clause was considered to be sufficient. The noble Earl now wished to disturb the arrangement and to introduce a new provision as to ecclesiastical charities. He (the Earl of Kimberley) could not assent to the proposal.

On Question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 103; Not-Contents 23. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 15 (Delegated powers of Parish Councils), agreed to.

Clause 16 (Complaint by Parish; Council of default of District Council).

LORD BELPER

said, the Amendment on the Paper in his name was intended to establish it more speedy method of enabling Local Authorities to get their roads put in order in case the District Council neglected its duty in the matter. He had put down this and one or two other Amendments in relation to highways because he desired to see the present law work more smoothly and because he wished to see the County Councils exercise greater supervision over the ordinary roads of the country than they exercised at present. He rather regretted that in bringing in a Bill of such importance as this—a Bill dealing with so many subjects of local government—the Government had not attempted in any way to systematise the present method of road government. There were changes they could have effected on points of detail which, in the opinion of many experienced persons who had to deal with road matters in the localities, would have been a great improvement on the present system of road management. Under his proposa the speedy relief—relief, he was bound to say, of a somewhat exceptional character—which was given to the Parish Council in enabling it to appeal direct to the County Council in oases where there had been neglect on the part of the District Council in regard to sanitary matters would be extended to roads. No doubt it would be. argued against his Amendment that at present there was some power which enabled anyone who had complaints to make of the state of the roads to appeal to the County Authority. The clause which dealt with that was a clause in the High-ways Act of 1878. It gave power to anyone to complain to the County Authority, and the County Authority, on receiving complaint, could act in a certain manner. But although this clause no doubt went as far as was practicable in times past, yet it entailed a very dilatory procedure. If a complaint was made under that clause to the County Authority, it was their duty to call upon the Local Authority to put the road in order within a certain time. Of course, it was clear that a reasonable time must be allowed; but if, after that time bad elapsed, the work was not done, they might themselves step in and authorise someone else to do the work; but, at the same time, the Local Authority could raise the question of their liability, and that question, if disputed by the County Authority, had to go before a jury. While all this was going on, the road which was complained of—and which could not be complained of until it was in a very bad state to start with—would probably become impassable. To show that he was not dealing with a supposititious case, he would mention a case which had occurred in his own County of Nottingham some years ago. The Highway Authorities in a large district in the county were anxious to be dissolved, and because the Court of Quarter Sessions which was then in existence did not speedily take the same view as the Highway Authorities, the latter neglected to repair their roads. They allowed the roads at a very important period of the year—namely, in the winter—to fall into disrepair. The fact was notorious, known to all the newspapers in the district. Nevertheless, the Quarter Sessions would not take action until complaint had been made, and then another procedure which, he thought, was also under Act of Parliament was adopted—that of indicting the Road Authority. For some technical reason, however, the action failed. But the fact was, that in consequence of the procedure that had to be taken and the notice that had to be given to the Highway Authorities who were neglecting their duty, by the time the county were able themselves to step in to perform the work the roads had really been cut to pieces, and the County Authority had to repair them almost from the foundations. The expense in that case was enormous compared with what it would have been if there had been some speedy relief and some attempt had been made to put the roads in order at an earlier period before they had got completely destroyed. That, no doubt, was a peculiar case; but he must say that when he saw this clause, which was drawn for the purpose of allowing the Parish Council to make complaint in regard to water supply, and of allowing the County Council to step in and do the work when complaint was made, it struck him that if such a clause was to be given for purposes so delicate and so difficult as deciding as to the insufficiency or un whole someness of the supply of water, and also of deciding a matter which could only be settled by a skilled engineer—namely, whether a proper water supply could be got at a reasonable cost, it did seem to him that there was a fair argument for putting in the proviso that in the matter of a parish road which it was of the utmost, importance should be speedily repaired if it fell into a bad state of repair, the County Council should have the same power as it possessed in regard to sanitary matters. No doubt when the clause in the Highway Act of 1878, to which he had referred, was passed, it was considered hardly sufficient for the purpose, but it was thought that it would not be safe to carry the matter further at that time. There was really no County Authority over the highways. In his own county—and the same thing existed in other counties—there was actually no county surveyor. There was no one thoroughly cognisant of the details of county management of roads and able to give the necessary information as to whether the roads complained of were really roads for which the authorities were liable, or whether there was any consideration which would make it diffi- cult for the Quarter Sessions to undertake the matter. At present, however, in all counties they had a Highway Committee under the County Council, and a thoroughly competent surveyor. From his own knowledge he could say that there was a very strong feeling in the country that the County Council should have far greater authority in this matter than they had at present. It might be said that if the County Council stepped in hastily to do repairs they might discover subsequently that they had been repairing roads for which the District Council were not responsible. He held, however, that with the three authorities that would exist in the future—namely, the Parish Council, the District Council, and the County Council, there would not be the slightest chance of doubt arising as to liability. But even if it was thought that there was a chance of that, nothing would be easier than to introduce into the clause some words to provide that there should be no charge put upon the District Council in cases of disputed liability until the liability was proved. In that case if the County Council stepped in they would do so at their own risk. But from the knowledge he had of what now obtained in these matters, he believed it was hardly possible to imagine a case where the County Council would step in without first satisfying themselves—and they were competent to make inquiries —that the road was one which the District Council were liable to repair, and which, therefore, ought to have been kept in a proper state of repair by that authority. He assured the Government that he moved the Amendment simply in the interests of the good government of roads in the country. He hoped the Government would be inclined to accept it, as he was sure the speedy relief it would give would be very beneficent to all parties. He did not think that the clause, or any part of it, would often be put into force. He should doubt whether in many counties it would ever be put into force. But the power which would be given to the County Council under his proposal would operate as it most excellent incentive to the District Council to do their duty. If a Councillor saw a road out of repair and said one word in the District Council as to his power of appeal, it would render the road surveyor far more eager to do his duty than he would otherwise be.

Amendment moved, In page 17. line 2, after the word ("do") to insert the words ("or that they have failed to maintain and repair any highway in a good and substantial manner").—(The Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it appeared to the Government that there was no necessity for this Amendment, because by the 10th section of the Highways and Locomotives Act full I provision was made for requiring authorities who had neglected to repair the roads to repair them, and the County Council had ample power in the matter. The law was this: Any ratepayer in the county could make complaint to the County Council, and upon such a complaint being made to them the County Council were bound to send a surveyor to ascertain whether the road was in a fit state of repair. If on a report of its surveyor the County Council found that a road was not in a state of repair it could require the District Council forthwith to repair the road within a fixed time. If the District Council still refused to repair the road the County Council itself could do so, and charge the whole expense to the District Council. In the ease of disputed liability the Act very properly made provision for a reference of the question to a jury. In his opinion, the arrangements were sufficiently complete. Anyone at any time could set in motion the county surveyor. He had in his own experience known it done several times, and the redress provided by the Act appeared ample. The only difference the noble Lord sought to make was that the matter should be forthwith transferred to the County Council if the District Council failed to do its duty; that was to say, that the County Council might act without having previously ascertained who was liable. That he thought an objectionable proceeding. Ho did not think that the County Council should, in the first place, repair a road for the District Council which the District Council was not liable to repair, and then afterwards try the question. Their Lordships should observe that it would be much more easy to try the question whether or not a road was out of repair before that road was repaired than it would be after. If it was repaired first the question would have been prejudged. That, to his mind, was not a desirable mode of proceeding, and he did not see any necessity for it. He sympathised with the noble Lord in his desire that there should be a speedy mode of requiring the authorities to repair the roads; and if he thought there was not a speedy mode already existing, he should assent to the Amendment. He submitted, however, that a sufficient ease had not been made out for amending the Highways and Locomotives Act.

LORD BELPER

said, that when action was taken under the Highways Act of 1878 it was necessary for the County Authority to call on the Local Authority to put the road in repair, and to give them time to do so. As he had pointed out, if the work was required to be done at a critical time of the year, with the road in a bad state of repair already, the delay which might take place would lead to the road becoming impassable. He would assure the noble Lord, who seemed to think that the law as to this point was in a satisfactory state, that ho had many representations not only from his own county, but from gentlemen in other counties, as to the desirability of having a more speedy means of repairing roads than existed under the Act of 1878. With regard to the wording of his Amendment, he had adopted the phraseology which was considered satisfactory in the clause for other purposes.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I do not object to the words.

LORD BELPER

said, he had adopted the words of the clause. At present the law was inoperative, for there was no adequate provision for payment for the work after it was done. That point he proposed to meet by a subsequent Amendment. If his proposal were accepted, he should be willing to add words to the effect that in case of disputed liability no charge should be made on the District Council until the question was settled.

*VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, that as one who had suffered through the neglect of Highway Authorities to repair the roads, he hoped the Government would give way on this matter. In the northern part of the county with which he was connected some time ago they had not had the roads mended for more than a year and-a-half, and the result was that the county had been put to great expense to repair them. The Amendment would give the County Councils power to act immediately. That was all the noble Lord who made the proposal wanted. He hoped there would be nothing in the Act to prevent County Councils taking over all roads in the counties, and that this plan would be adopted so as not to revert to the old system by which each parish maintained its own roads in as bad and uneconomical a way as possible.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 17, line 13, after the word ("duty") to insert the words ("mentioned in the Order").

*LORD THRING

said, he wished to move to insert, after Sub-section 2, the following now sub-section:— Where the District Council of an urban district other than a borough have failed to perform their duty in any of the matters heretofore in this section mentioned, any six electors of such District Council, or the Parish Council of a rural parish affected by the default of such District Council, may complain to the County Council, and thereupon the County Council shall have the like powers and duties as in the case of a complaint under this section made by a Parish Council against the Rural District Council. The clause provided for giving the County Council power over the authorities of all rural districts in case of their making default in sanitary matters. That power was necessary, and the Amendment he proposed was that the same power should be given to the County Council over small towns— that was to say, over all the urban sanitary districts except boroughs. Those of their Lordships who sat on County Councils knew the importance of this Amendment. The greatest sinners against sanitary laws were the small towns, and nothing could be more unfair than to exempt them from the clause. In his own County of Surrey they had a place like Egham, with a population of 10,000, which was not an urban sanitary district. Mitcham, with a population of 5,000, was an urban sanitary district. The consequence was, that the County Council could compel Egham to do its duty, but could not compel the small town of Mitcham to do it. In the North of England this state of things was very much aggravated. There—especially in Yorkshire — a great many of the urban sanitary districts had populations of only 300, 500, 600, and 1,000, and yet they were all exempted from the control of the County Council. All he asked was that these towns should be put under the same control as the rural sanitary districts. They were almost always smaller than the rural sanitary districts, and the effect of the Bill, therefore, was to submit the larger districts to the Comity Council and exempt the smaller.

Amendment moved, In page 17, line 17, after ("(2.)") insert new sub-section:—("Where the District Council of an urban district other than a borough have failed to perform their duty in any of the matters heretofore in this section mentioned, any six electors of such District Council, or the Parish Council of a rural parish affected by the default of such District Council, may complain to the County Council, and thereupon the County Council shall have the like powers and duties as in the case of a complaint made by a Parish Council under this section").—(The Lord Thring.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he quite sympathised with the object of his noble Friend's Amendment. The whole arrangement of these urban districts was very anomalous and very unsatisfactory. There wore a number of very small districts which had obtained urban powers, and there were a great number of larger districts which had not got those powers, and the whole thing had been done with out any system or any distinct plan. That, he thought, must he admitted on all hands. On the other hand, he shrank from assenting to the Amendment of his noble Friend, for its effect might he to cause violent antagonism between these Local Boards and the County Councils, and so to produce difficulties and disturbances the extent of which it would be difficult to estimate. So far as his own experience went, it was at present exceedingly difficult to keep the peace between the County Councils and the Local Boards when they came into contact. He knew there was the strongest opposition on the part of the urban districts to such a clause, and the result of its [acceptance would be to bring about friction and interfere with the harmonious working of local institutions as they at present existed. He cordially esteemed the County Councils as a body, and he thought they might congratulate themselves that, on the whole, they were working in England extremely well, but he doubted whether the time had arrived when this power should be given to them. Me was not at all prepared to say that it might not hereafter be right to extend the powers of the County Council; but though there was a great deal to be said in favour of the Amendment, ho sub-mitted that, upon the whole, it would be better not to insert it in the Bill.

THE DIKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said that, as he had an Amendment on the Paper similar to this, he would give the noble Lord his support. He would call attention to the fact that they already gave an immense power to the County Council in the Bill. Sub-section 2 provided as follows:— Upon any complaint under this section the County Council may, instead of resolving that the duties and powers of the Rural District Council be transferred to them, make such an Order as is mentioned in Section 29!) of the Public Health Act. 1875, and may appoint a person to perform the duty, and upon such appointment Sections 299 to 302 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply with the substitution of the County Council for the Local Government Board.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

That is as regards rural districts.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that if it were necessary and right to do this in the rural districts, why should it not be necessary and right to do it in the urban districts? What was the difference between a rural and an urban district that they should not impose this duty on the latter? It might happen that nuisances complained of in a rural district had their rise in urban districts'; and if that was so, unless this Amendment were inserted, the County Council would have no power in the matter.

*THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said that, as Chairman of the County Council of the populous county of Staffordshire, he had to do with as large, if not a larger, number of big towns represented on his Council as anyone, and he said unhesitatingly that he thoroughly agreed with the Leader of the House in the matter. The position was one of extreme delicacy between the County Councils and the Local Elected Bodies representing these large communities, and it required all the tact that could be exercised to prevent friction. He did not think that, in any case, things were ripe for the exercise by the County Councils of this power over the urban districts, though he admitted that the time might come hereafter when the powers of the County Council might be extended.

*THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he could confirm what had just fallen from the noble Earl opposite. He thought if this power was now given it would seriously interfere with the harmonious working of the different bodies. Certainly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where there were a large number of these bodies, it would lead to much difficulty.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he understood that the County Councils were to modify the boundaries of these urban districts and take on themselves to control how large they should be or how small. If the County Councils could take upon themselves the greater cause of friction he did not see why they should not take the lesser.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, those powers as to boundaries which were very necessary would no doubt cause considerable friction. He felt that very strongly; but was that not an argument for not super adding other powers likely to cause friction?

A noble LORD said, that after all the District Council was an elected body, and he objected to any six electors raising objection to matters relating to District Councils. If any electors objected to the action of the members of the District Council their remedy was not to return them again. He protested against the Amendment.

LORD BELPER

said, that if lie got the supervision of the roads put into the clause, he should feel bound to support the Government in resisting further amendment, because he did not think it would do to allow the ordinary rights of an Urban Authority to be interfered with by the County Council. At present in his county they worked harmoniously with the Urban Authorities, and he should be sorry to see anything done to interfere with that harmonious working.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 17, line 18, before the word ("district") to insert the word ("rural").

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 (Officers of the Parish Council).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 18, line 1. after the words ("or by") to insert the word ("existing").

*THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, he wished to move, in page 18, line 16, to leave out the word "either." The Amendment affected the custody of parish documents. By the Bill it was proposed that these documents should either remain in their existing custody, or be deposited in such custody as the Parish Council might direct. In most of these cases the Incumbent had provided a safe in which all the documents were kept, and the custody of them was, on the whole, fairly safe. But it seemed to him that, unless it was distinctly stated in the Bill that the documents should remain in custody where they were now unless the Parish Council should otherwise direct, there was likely to be disturbance of the custody of the documents. He would further propose that before any change was effected the County Council should be satisfied that provision was made for the safe custody of the documents. He was aware that there was a sub-section which directed the County Council to inquire as to the safe keeping of the parish books and documents; but it ought to be the duty of the County Council, whenever the Parish Council proposed to remove these things from their existing custody, to see that a proper place was provided to put them in.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that before the Committee went further he wanted to know what was the meaning of the extraordinary Subsection (4),"A Parish Council shall not appoint a Vestry clerk." Why should not a Parish Council appoint a Vestry-clerk? What was the disability of the Vestry clerk? Why was he treated as if he were a leper? Why was the Vestry clerk, owing to the disgrace of having once been in communication with the Church, to be singled out as the solitary man in the parish who should not be a Parish Councillor?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Vestry would have preserved to them their existing powers in regard to ecclesiastical matters, and obviously it would not be right to allow the Parish Council to appoint the Vestry clerk. It should be left to the Vestry to appoint their own clerk.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he understood that the Vestry would appoint their own clerk to deal with ecclesiastical matters; but why was the Vestry clerk to be the only inhabitant of a village not eligible for election to the position of Parish Council clerk?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that the meaning of the sub-section was that the Parish Council should not appoint the clerk to the Vestry.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the words should be altered so as to read— The Parish Council shall not appoint a person to be clerk to the Vestry. He had received a most indignant remonstrance from the Vestry clerk with whom he was best acquainted as to the wording of the sub-section.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

said, that it was now too late to amend the sub-section.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that no Question had been put from the Chair. At any rate, he would move the Amendment on Report.

Amendment moved, In page 18. line 16, to leave out the word ("either").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that he could not accept the Amendment, because the drafting of the sub-section was the result of agreement in the House of Commons between the Government and the hon. and learned Gentleman who occupied the position of Attorney General in the late Government.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he entirely objected to such a reason for resisting Amendments in that House. He objected to agreements elsewhere being quoted as having anything to do with the proceedings in their Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he should take the liberty of quoting them nevertheless. No one was bound by the agreement but the Government.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, it was an entire deviation from their ordinary practice to quote agreements entered into in the House of Commons as governing their proceedings here. Of course, it was competent to the noble Lord to say anything or quote anything be liked, but he (the Marquess of Salisbury) maintained that their Lordships should not be influenced by these quotations.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he ventured entirely to differ from the noble Marquess. That agreements made between the two Parties in the other House should be repudiated in the House of Lords was one of the most objectionable practices that could exist. When he said that he could not accept the Amendment, he spoke only for himself and his colleagues, who considered themselves bound by the agreement; but he could not suggest that the House was in any way bound.

*THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, that if the Government in this House were bound by agreements made in the House of Commons, how did it come to pass that they had accepted an Amendment moved by the Earl of Jersey with regard to the compensation to be paid to the landlord at the termination of a tenancy? This Amendment interfered with what had been the subject of agreement in the House of Commons, and yet the noble Earl had not objected.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

That occurred when I was not in the House. I am not able to give any explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 18. line 20, after the word ("papers") to insert the words ("as are referred to in this sub-section").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 (Parish wards).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In lines 40, 41, leave out the words ("and that a separate election be held of the Parish Councillors for each ward").

On Question, that the Clause, as amended, be agreed to?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he wished to call attention to the fact that this was really a clause of great importance. It was a decision between the question of what was called scrutin de liste and scrutin de arrondissement. One of the great defects of the Bill was that Parish Councils were elected all in a block. If there were five or 15 persons to be elected they wore all elected in one long list, instead of being elected for separate parts of the parish. Of course, that was inevitable in a small parish, but in a large parish it might be extremely inconvenient. Were the conditions in this case sufficiently distinct to justify the County Council in treating this as otherwise than a very exceptional proceeding? The wording of the clause ought to be such as to satisfy the County Council that they should exercise these powers where needful. There might, for instance, be parishes in which there was a division of interests—in which there were both urban and rural districts. There, again, might be parishes containing a village at one end and a village at the other end. Should the Council feel that it was not in exceptional cases of this kind, but the general intention of the Act, that there should be a division into wards?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he did not differ from the noble Marquess. There were a variety of cases where division into wards would be desirable. The only condition, as the noble Marquess supposed, which should limit the operation of the power contained in the clause would be the smallness of the parish—that it would be impossible to have a division into wards. He could conceive a large number of cases where it would be desirable to have division.

*LORD DE RAMSEY

said, he had drafted an Amendment to the effect of the observations of the noble Marquess, but he had not put it on the Paper, as Her Majesty's Government seemed unwilling to give way on any point. He rather gathered from what the Leader of the House said that he would be inclined to allow parishes that had already been divided under the powers of the County Councils for the purpose of electing County Councillors, to remain for the purposes of this Bill. If that were the case, it would save a great deal of expense.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he thought the clause as drawn was sufficient for the purpose. The first sub-section said— A County Council may, on application by the Parish Council, or not less than one-tenth of the parochial electors of a parish, and on being satisfied that the area or population of the parish is so large, or different parts of the population so situated, as to make a single parish meeting for the election of Councillors impracticable or inconvenient, or that it is desirable for any reason that certain parts of the parish should be separately represented on the Council, order that the parish be divided, and so on. That was a very large power. He could hardly conceive that words could be put in which would be more extensive because they did not confine the exercise of the power to the question of the size of the parish because the words "or that it is desirable for any reason" wore used. Those words would cover all the reasons the noble Marquess had pointed out, and would be a direction to the County Council to take into consideration not only the particular matters mentioned but all other reasons.

*LORD DE RAMSEY

Will the words remain as they are?

THE EARL OF KIMBEKLEY

That is impossible to say. The present words were created for a different purpose, and if we said that these words should be availed of for the purposes of this Bill we might be making a great mistake. If the words were convenient it would be easy to adopt them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 19 (Provisions as to small parishes).

THE EARL OF KIMBEKLEY

I have an Amendment which is merely a drafting Amendment, to leave out words which appear in another part of the clause.

Amendment moved, In page 19, lines 16 and 17, to leave out the words ("The annual assembly of the parish meeting shall he either in March or in April and").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he thought it would be desirable to have a day fixed for the meetings just as they had in the case of the County Councils.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that under the Bill the meeting would be on the 25th of March or within seven days before that date or after it.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, there was not much between himself and the noble Earl, save that he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had desired to have a specific day fixed.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The 25th of March will be the pivot day. There may be reasons why in some cases the meeting should take place a day or two earlier or a day or two later.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

I quite see that.

Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, ho wished to move an Amendment in Sub-section (2) to the effect that the parish meeting should assemble not less than "twice" in each year, instead of four times. It seemed to him that twice would be quite often enough so far as the Bill was concerned, but, of course, the Council could agree to meet as frequently as it chose. The parish meetings would take the place of the old Vestries, which only met once a year; therefore, "twice" would be sufficient to provide for in the Bill.

Amendment moved, In page 19, line 19, to leave out the words ("four times") and insert the word ("twice"). —(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that as the Bill originally stood, with the limit of 200 population, he would have been disposed to agree with the noble Duke that twice a year would be sufficient; but he thought that, inasmuch as the limit of the parish had by an earlier Amendment been fixed at 500, these meetings ought to be held four times a year.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that his Amendment only fixed the minimum number, and would not in any way prevent more frequent meetings if they were desired.

Amendment agreed to.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, the third sub-section provided that all the acts of a, committee or a parish meeting should be submitted to the parish meeting for approval. He begged to move to insert the words "unless otherwise ordered by the parish meeting."

Amendment moved, In page 19, line 21, after the word ("shall") to insert the words ("unless otherwise ordered by the parish meeting").—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would submit that this was not a very desirable Amendment. The powers which would be entrusted to the committee would be very large, and he did not think they should be exercised apart from the control of the parish meeting. In many parishes there would be a very small number of Councillors, and the committee would be correspondingly small in number. A great deal of jealousy was felt by noble Lords on the other side of the House as to what might be done by parish meetings, especially in small parishes. He did not so much share that jealousy, but at the same time he thought they should take reasonable safeguards. If committees were able to exercise the large powers contained in the Bill it might lead to things being done which their Lordships would not desire.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked whether he rightly understood that all the powers and duties and responsibilities of the parish meeting might be transferred by them to a committee of their own appointment? If so, that was not in the Bill. Having appointed the committee the parish meeting had no means of investing it with powers.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that all the acts of the committee would be submitted to the parish meeting for approval. That was in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the committee would have no executive power.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Only subject to having its executive acts continued by the parish meeting.

Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved an Amendment in the same subsection, omitting the words "or Churchwardens," so that only the powers and the duty of appointing Overseers and of appointing trustees of a charity in the place of Overseers shall vest in the parish meeting.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 19. line 30, after the word ("Overseers") to insert the words ("and of notifying the appointment"). In page 20, line 1, to leave out the second word ("the") and insert the word ("any").

Amendment moved, In page 20, line 20, before the word ("financial") to insert the word ("local").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked if it was the intention of the Government that if the parish meeting had already exhausted all its finances under the adoptive Acts it should be without money?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Marquess would observe that the limiting provision related to the parish meeting' and not to the Parish Council.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I see that.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that no doubt the noble Marquess had correctly interpreted the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then they would have nothing for gas or to clean the place up?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

That is so. No doubt the case is different to that which was contemplated when the provision as to population stood at 200. Whether or not there should be a larger amount than 6d. inserted I do not know. I doubt if we in this House could increase the amount. At any rate, I am not prepared to propose any Amendment.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, that with the smaller number of population the Government contemplated conferring on the parish meeting all the powers of the Parish Council?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that was so.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, that if they used them they would soon find themselves without money.

LORD BELPER

said, the parish meeting need not be starved out. If there was anything they were obliged to pay for they could go to the County Council for a loan.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

hoped the clause would remain as it was at present. The reasons which might make it necessary to incur greater expense in larger parishes would not apply in smaller ones. It was not to be supposed that in a parish of less than 500 inhabitants any but a very moderate expenditure would be incurred in connection with the adoptive Acts.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he agreed with some of the objections raised. On the other hand, it was not desirable that they should confer on very small bodies any considerable power of charging rates.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You have decided that the parish meeting shall meet at 6 o'clock twice a year, and you are now declaring that in some cases it shall have no money even to pay for a tallow candle. What is it to do when it has exhausted the 6d.?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

It will do what an individual with £100 A year has to do when his £100 is expended, and he requires more. It must run into debt. If it would avoid running into debt it must live within its income. I do not see how a parish meeting differs from a Parish Council in this respect. The Parish Council is limited in the amount of its expenditure; and if it went beyond that limit it would have no power to obtain more money, nor ought it to have. These bodies must take care, when they deal with the adoptive Acts, to leave themselves with sufficient margin of money for ordinary purposes.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The adoptive Acts may have been put in force already. What would happen if the parish meeting had not enough money left to buy a candle?

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

They would have to meet in the dark.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I cannot help thinking that many things will be done in the dark under any circumstances.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Will the noble Marquess move anything? I have no extraordinary affection for this clause.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Oh, no. I only ask a question.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.