GUARDIANS AND DISTRICT COUNCILS.

HL Deb 06 February 1894 vol 21 cc74-152

Clause 20 (Election and qualification of Guardians).

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved to insert a, new clause after Subsection 1— The members of a County Council qualified to be elected Guardians under this clause shall be, by virtue of their office, additional members of the Board of Guardians for the Poor Law Union in which they reside, provided they consent to serve. He said, he had hesitated somewhat before putting his Amendment in Subsection 1 on the Paper, as it was not very easy to make up one's mind how a new system would work; but the changes in Boards of Guardians and in the working of the Poor Law were so vast that he thought any Member of that House who possessed information on the subject should not hesitate to give it in order, if possible, to assist in making these great changes as free from danger as possible, and as beneficial as they all desired to all classes concerned. He had lived all his life in Staffordshire, in close relation with great populations where the administration of the Poor Law was of immense importance. The more he looked into the matter the more he felt that time ought to have been given to the country for its consideration. He did not wish, no more than any of their Lordships, to set up a privileged class to obtain social influence or anything of that kind; but it was most desirable, in the interest of the whole country and especially of the working population, to get some of the most experienced and trusty men of all classes on the Boards of Guardians, and it was extremely difficult to induce them to serve. Moreover, it must be remembered that, owing to the change so hastily made in this Bill, the voting power would be solely in the hands of one class in the community, and many of the men who had administered the Poor Law for many years would undoubtedly, at any rate at first, be ousted, while the three or four ex officio members who had been the leaders and guides of many a Board of Guardians would be displaced, and lost to the service of the poor by this Bill. He therefore suggested that the members of the County Council who were qualified in each district, to be elected for the Boards resided within them, and should, if they would consent to serve, be Guardians by virtue of their office. As members of the County Council they would already have stood the test, of popular election. This provision would not only secure the services of experienced farmers who commanded the confidence of their friends and neighbours, and of leading professional or trading men, but it would supply a useful connection between the Boards of Guardians and the County Councils, and give another inducement to the active spirits of the county to serve on the County Councils. In this way leading men would be got upon the Boards. For it must never be forgotten that there was no probability that leading busy men, of experience and quiet habits, when in mature life would be willing to submit to frequent elections for various offices, and frequently to undergo the toil of election work in their villages, and always were not likely to run the gauntlet of canvassing in their counties. It was impossible to take too much trouble to secure that the bodies which dealt with such a pitiable mass of human suffering —the old and infirm the tramp, and the honest, unfortunate labourer, the fallen women, the waifs and strays of modern life, the parentless children, the imbeciles and idiots, outdoor and indoor relief—all involved in Poor Law administration—should be as efficient and trustworthy as possible. Their Lordships also could not shut out of consideration the enormous sum of money dealt with—between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 a year. He did not want to press the Amendment against the judgment of their Lordships' House, but had thought it advisable to bring it forward for their consideration, recommended as it was by both sides of polities, by many of the most experienced men in both Houses of Parliament, as well as those long concerned in charity organisation and Poor Law work in our great cities.

Amendment moved, After Sub-section (1) to insert as a new Subsection—("The members of a County Council qualified to be elected Guardians under this clause shall be, by virtue of their office, additional members of the Board of Guardians for the Poor Law Union in which they reside, provided they consent to serve").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

٭EARL CADOGAN

was loth to oppose any Amendment of his noble Friend, who had such an intimate knowledge of matters connected with the administration of the Poor Law; but, at the same time, he hoped the Amendment would not be pressed. All the arguments which the noble Earl had used were advanced on the previous evening in support of ex officio Guardians, whom the House had determined not to continue. Such a provision he, for one, would not support. This clause would apply not only to country districts, but also to the Metropolis; and if any such power as the noble Earl proposed were applied to London, it would be very distasteful to the London Boards.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, that the present proposal was quite different from that of the previous evening. The latter dealt with ex officio Guardians, and the former with elective Guardians. If the Amendment were carried to a Division he should support, it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the principle that there should not be ex officio Guardians was decided on the previous evening. County Councillors were not elected for the purpose of administering the Poor Law, but for quite other business. They might be presumed to have the confidence of their constituents, and then it could not be supposed that if they desired to serve on Boards of Guardians they would not be elected. It seemed reasonable to think they would be elected. That was a reason for not placing them ex officio on the Board. Again, County Councillors were not necessarily resident in their districts. It seemed a pity to complicate; the matter by inserting this provision with regard to ex officio members.

٭EARL FORTESCUE

pointed out, in reference to County Councillors not being elected to do this particular work, that the same observation applied to District Councillors not being elected on account of their fitness for judicial work as Justices. If reasoning of that sort were employed, the Government did not appear to be quite consistent in their proposals.

LORD BELPER

said, he did not very much approve of this system of co-optation. A majority of a certain complexion having been obtained might be increased by the selection of others of the same complexion. But that was not the proposal here, which was to give County Councillors a seat on District Councils if they chose to accept. Apart from the question of principle, he thought there were obvious advantages in the proposal of the noble Earl. In some districts there might be a, difficulty in getting gentlemen of experience in local matters to offer themselves for election on the District Councils, and the assistance of members of the County Councils might be extremely valuable in stalling new Councils and getting them into working-order. Such additional members would also form a valuable link between the County Councils and the District Councils in reference to the many matters that would have to be dealt with by these bodies. Although he was in favour of this Amendment, he would prefer the wording of Lord De Ramsey's Amendment, which stood next upon the Paper, because it would place Aldermen, as well as County Councillors, upon the District Councils.

٭THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

thought that Lord Belper had rather mixed up two questions which were quite distinct, and pointed out that the Amendment had nothing whatever to do with District Councillors except in so far as every District Councillor was a Guardian. He thought there was no necessity for adding County Councillors to the Boards of Guardians ex officio, and he hoped the noble Earl would not press his Amendment.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, he was aware that many gentlemen who had taken a very active interest in the practical working of the Bill attached a good deal of importance to an Amendment either in this form or in the form of Lord De Ramsey's Amendment entirely irrespective of any question of principle or Party and simply with a view to the smooth working of the new arrangement. The President of the Council had observed that gentlemen who had been elected on the County Council would find no difficulty, if they wished it, in being elected as District Councillors or Guardians. That might be perfectly true, but it did not follow that all gentlemen who were qualified to fill both of these offices would care to expose themselves to the trouble and annoyance of more elections than was absolutely necessary. If a man sought election as a Guardian or District Councillor it would mean that be meant to attend the particular body with some regularity. it was quite possible that the occasional attendance of County Councillors on the District Councils might be advantageous for the better working of the Bill. Ho would not express any opinion on the question of principle raised by either of the Amendments; but, as he had said, he knew a good deal of importance was attached to some such Amendment simply from the point of view of administration and the smooth working of the measure.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

drew attention to the fact, which had, he said, previously escaped observation, that the noble Earl's Amendment included Aldermen. Whatever reason there might be for including County Councillors, he could see no reason for including Aldermen, who were not elected by the constituency where the Boards of Guardians were situated, but were elected by the County Council generally,'and might not have the con- fidence of the electors in the particular districts in which they happened to reside. It was a mere accident whether the Alderman chanced to reside in one part of the country or another. He desired to point out that the noble Lord might see the difference between this and the succeeding proposition.

THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY

hoped the noble Earl would withdraw his Amendment in favour of Lord De Ramsey's, which would be concurred in on that side of the House. He could testify to the good results which had been brought about in Scotland by the provision in the Act introduced by the late Government, that the members of the County Councils should be ex officio members of the District Committees. The fact of the members of the County Councils being on the District Committees had done a great deal to avoid friction in the working of the Scotch Act.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

said, he had had practical experience in these matters, and questions frequently arose between the Local Board and the County Councils where the presence of the County Councillor for the district had been of the greatest service. Numerous questions arose about roads, rents, and all sorts of things in which the assistance of a County Councillor was of great value.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

confessed that he had considerable hesitation about this clause. The noble Duke said that this was merely a question of the smooth working of the Act, but their Lordships should consider how the proposal would bear on the currents of opinion within the Board, and how it would affect a Board if it should tend too much in one direction or the other. He was afraid it would only accentuate, emphasise, and intensify any undesirable bias which the Board of Guardians might have, and in no case would it be a corrective such as they would desire to see. His noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby) had excluded the Metropolis from his Amendment; but if the proposal was adopted, he did not think the Metropolis could be excluded long, and he was not, quite sure whether the Metropolis was precisely the place where ho should like to see this peculiar provision adopted. He did not know that it would improve in any marked degree the character of the government of many Boards of Guardians in the various districts of the Metropolis. He was glad to see that his noble Friend Lord Kensington was not near him at that moment, for he was therefore able to say what he thought about Wales. He was afraid that the same truth would be exemplified in Wales: that if there were a disposition and bias on the Boards of Guardians which might be thought undesirable and injurious to the community, this particular provision would not neutralise or correct, but would tend to intensify, them. Personally, he did not think he should be able to support this Amendment.

٭LORD DE RAMSEY

said, after the remarks of the noble Marquess, he felt himself in a difficulty. Of course, he would be among the first to desire to improve the working of this Bill, and some noble Lords who had for a long time taken a large and active part in the administration of the Poor Law felt very strongly on this matter. Personally, he wished to secure continuity of policy in the administration of the Poor Law; but as the Bill at present stood, it was in the power of the County Council to say that there should be a fresh Board of Guardians all at once. Judging from his own experience and from what he hoard, he honestly believed that the Guardians of the Unions desired to have a connecting link with the County Council. It was hardly fair or reasonable to expect men in these days to undergo the trouble and inconvenience of election for two different bodies. If a parish, to represent which a member had been sent to the Council, entrusted their representative to manage their parish affairs, and to do his best for the county, was it not correct to say that he was the person who should also be responsible to a certain extent for their Poor Law administration? He attached importance to the latter part of his Amendment, because the areas of the County Councils and the Unions did not always coincide. That matter he must leave in their Lordships' hands to do with as they thought best. Having had over 25 years' experience in the working of the Poor Law, ho would not be doing justice to the House if he refrained from saying that he attached the greatest importance to the existence of communication between the two bodies.

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, that two questions were referred to—one with regard to the election of Justices to the Boards of Guardians, and another as to election to the District Councils. The two questions were quite apart, and were arguable on different grounds. With regard to Aldermen, the case was different in his own County Council, and he believed in many others no difference was made between them, and he thought that no difference should he made, as both were elected members the one by the direct mandate of the people, the others by those who by popular election were shown to have the confidence of their neighbours. It was worth while considering whether it was not desirable to get on the Boards these persons, who would certainly not. stand election. He thought there was a strong and wide feeling in favour of the change he now proposed, even among ardent supporters of Her Majesty's Government, and accordingly he would take the sense of the Committee as to the insertion of the words.

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 109; Not-Contents 36.

Amendment agreed to.

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said that, now that the House had accepted the principle for which he contended with regard to Boards of Guardians (though holding himself free as regarded District Councillors), he was prepared to recommend the House to accept Lord De Ramsey's Amendment, which only differed in small details from his own.

LORD DE RAMSEY

moved— After Sub-section (1) to insert as a new Subsection—("The County Councillors elected for any electoral division wholly or partly included in the Union under the jurisdiction of a Board of Guardians, shall be, by virtue of their office, additional members of such Board: Provided that a County Councillor for a division included in more than one Union shall only be qualified to sit on one such Board, and shall in writing addressed to the chairman of each Board elect on which Board he will sit").

Amendment agreed to.

EARL CADOGAN

moved, after the provision against ex officio or nominated Guardians, that the sub-section should not apply to such Guardians as had been or might be nominated by the Local Government Board under Section 79 of 30 & 31 Vict., c. 6. He quoted the words of the Act as follows:— The Poor Law Board may from time to time nominate to be members of a Board of Guardians of a Union or parish in the Metropolis (whether elected under the Poor Law Acts or constituted under any Act) such persons as they think tit from among Justices of the Peace for any county or place resident in the Union or parish, or from among ratepayers resident therein and assessed to the poor rate therein on an annual rateable value of not less than £40, or partly from one and partly from the other, but so that the number of Guardians so nominated do not, together with the ex officie Guardians, ever exceed one-third of the full number of the elected Guardians. He thought there could be little doubt that under certain circumstances it would he desirable to have a limited number of nominated Guardians in Loudon to assist in the administration of the law in the poorer districts, and his object in moving this Amendment was to retain the power of the Local Government Board in this matter. The system of ex officio Guardians in London meant a leavening of the whole body with a number of men distinguished for all those excellent qualities and characteristics which had been alluded to. Such a power as was contained in the clause would enable the Local Government Board to send to the East End and elsewhere members possessing a knowledge of the principles of local government to act, as it were, as assessors on the Boards. That principle he hoped the Committee would endorse. Since the President of the Local Government Board had been in Office he had added several members to those previously appointed. There were in Bethnal Green, 2; St. George's-in-the East, 3; Clerkenwell, 4; Mile End, 2; St. Saviour's, 1; Shoreditch, 4; Stepney, 5; the Strand, 5; and White-chapel, 5. From many quarters testimony had been received of the great value of the assistance afforded by the various gentlemen who had been so appointed. The President of the Local Government Board himself did not wish to underrate the value of these nominated Guardians, and, possibly, if it had not been for his wish to adhere strictly to the first sub-section of this clause, he would himself have been favourably inclined towards the proposal now before the House. He would submit only one further consideration to the Government. Unfortunately, the Government had shown themselves very unwilling to accept any Amendments to this Bill, however strong and cogent might be the arguments adduced in their favour. This Amendment, however, they would find in no way counteracted any of the principles they had enunciated with reference to this subject. This power would be exercised by the Local Government Board, a body which had been recommended to their Lordships by noble Lords opposite most strongly during these Debates, and in whom the Government had advised them to place implicit trust. He hoped, therefore, the Government would view his Amendment favourably.

Amendment moved, After Sub-section (1), page 20, line 34, to insert ("Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to such Guardians as have been or may be nominated by the Local Government Board under Section 79 of 30 & 31 Viet. c. 6").—(The EaRl Cadogan.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Earl's last argument was rather surprising after what had been said about the Local Government Board, but he would accept it as a sign of repentance, and trusted that the Local Government Board would be in future spoken of with a little more confidence than had been the case hitherto. Whatever confidence he might have in the general administration of the Local Government Board, was it desirable to entrust them with the power of flooding Boards of Guardians in London with nominated members? He had considerable confidence in the members of the Local Government Board, but did not wish to impose so much as that upon them. This proposal might defeat the whole object of the Bill by placing a number of not less than one-third on the Boards. Although there was, no doubt, practical difficulty in extending this proviso to the country generally, he did not see why such a provision should be restricted to London and not extended to some of the larger towns, where it might be argued that nominated members would be extremely useful. It was not desirable to introduce into a Bill of this kind such a provision in reference to any particular portion of the Kingdom or that any special reason could be given in its favour.

EARL CADOGAN

said, he had limited his Amendment to London simply to meet the view of the President of the Local Government Board, that if the principle were applied to the whole of the country it would involve the nomination of about 6,000 members to the Boards of Guardians.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

was quite aware of the practical difficulty, and it was upon that that he based his argument. Of course, if the principle were good it could be generally applied. He could understand arguments being put forward against trusting the people, but could not see why London should be singled out, as the constituency which required to have an element of nomination given in order to counteract its evil tendency. No doubt the gentlemen nominated would do good work, just as good work had been done by the ex officio Guardians; but Her Majesty's Government were asked to insert an Amendment which was quite inconsistent with the general scope of the Bill, and for that reason he could not assent to it.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he little thought he should be called upon to vindicate the measure of 1869. He looked back with much satisfaction to that Act, which was passed when he was President of the Local Government Board. That Act had never been altered, since it had received the universal consent of both Houses of Parliament. The measure bad been rendered necessary owing to the great abuses that existed at that time in the administration of the Poor Law in some of the London workhouses, and it was in order to ensure that some of the Guardians should be in touch with the Local Government Board that that Act had been passed. The provisions of the measure had been carried into effect with the most happy results. He might give one illustration of what went on at that. time. It was ordered in one of the workhouses that an additional medical man should be appointed, as there were an enormous number of people in the place who were greatly neglected. When the Inspector got there he found a person carefully dressed up like a medical man, but he was informed that the man was really a drunken pauper, a medical man of some kind who had been reduced to poverty, who had been dressed up for the occasion. That was the kind of thing which the Act was intended to meet. He remembered finding at one time among the sick poor more than one in a bed, with no nurse, and nothing done for their comfort or health. He admitted that in many parts of London there might be difficulty in obtaining ex officio Guardians, but, in his opinion, their Lordships would be well advised to keep to the system which no one had ventured to suggest had failed. Their Lordships bad come to the conclusion that, in addition to the Guardians elected ad hoc, others should be put upon the Boards who had been elected for a different purpose. Where Guardians were acting properly there would be no necessity for the interference of the Local Government Board; but that Department should have power to exercise some control in cases where there was ground for believing that the Boards were neglecting their duty.

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 122; Not-Contents 44.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

moved to insert— In paragraph (2). after the words "within the area of a borough," the words "whether a county borough or nut.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

wished, before the Committee passed to the next Amendments on the Paper, to express his regret that there was no Amendment affecting the qualification of the persons to be elected Guardians. Of course, the same observation would apply to District Councillors. Their Lordships were aware by this time how much those who desired to see this Bill work well would feel dissatisfied with the divorce effected between the power of rating and the liability to pay rates. Various devices bad been suggested for the purpose of getting rid of that difficulty. Whether those which had been adopted would ultimately remain was, of course, a matter of speculation. One mode which would at least mitigate, if not remove in principle, that objection would be by making it a qualification for those elected, whether to Parish Councils or, as here, to Boards of Guardians or, as the Leader of the House had said, to District Councils, that they should be directly rated to the poor rate; and at the same time a proviso might be added that any occupier of rateable property, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1869 about compound householders might, if he pleased, pass over the payment of the rate. While regretting that no Amendment of that kind bad been proposed, be had not himself placed one on the Paper, feeling that there were many noble Lords in the House who understood these matters far better than he, and who, therefore, if such an Amendment were desired, would be fitter to propose it. The point well deserved consideration, both on principle and for practical reasons. He would not dwell upon the principle, because their Lordships understood what that was. It would, to a considerable extent, be provided for if it were ensured that those who incurred the expenses were themselves persons who would have to pay the rates. That would be, at all events, a security that they knew what they were about. He was not expressing any distrust of the class dealt with particularly in the Bill; for high or low, great or small, poor or rich, no one ought to be trusted with the power of taxing other people, and laying upon them burdens which they themselves did not share. If he were himself placed in that position he did not hesitate to say that, however good his intentions might be, be ought not to be trusted, and ought not to have the power of imposing the burden of rates and taxes which did not in the slightest touch himself. Under the Bill (though not as their Lordships had left it) that would be possible. There was no sound principle standing in the way of that qualification, for those elected to exercise such powers, that they should be personally rated to the poor rate. He thought the words as to residence "for the whole of the 12 months" should be omitted, not raising at present the question of what that entire residence was. That point bad been dealt with.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

did not remember having left out "the whole 12 months." He had preferred to consider it, and having done so would now tell the noble and learned Lord what the result of that consideration had been. The reason why the "whole" period was inserted in the Bill was that that term was used in the Municipal Act, and being, therefore, a recognised term, it seemed inadvisable to have any other definition in this Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry that my noble and learned Friend, after the very pertinent and valuable observations he has addressed to the Committee, did not conclude with an Amendment, if for no other reason than that the noble Earl at the head of the Government might chant again that hymn in praise of trust in the people which he sings with so much grace and energy. I hope my noble and learned Friend will give us another opportunity of expressing an opinion upon the subject. I, like him, am absolutely dismayed at the entire divorce between representation and taxation which this Bill establishes. The principle of the Bill is to enable people who are not rated to levy contributions upon people who are rated; that is the whole principle of the Bill. It is the principle of allowing the guests at a dinner to order whatever dinner they like, and mine host to have the exclusive privilege of paying for it. It is not difficult to see that such a course would rapidly bring mine host into the Bankruptcy Court, and I imagine the dinners would not continue much longer. I should be glad to see any proposal which would in a small degree tend to diminish and attenuate this danger. Though I do not believe that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord would be an absolute safeguard, still it would, no doubt, be beneficial, and it would at all events avoid putting upon the Statute Book in this very naked form a declaration that the old liberal principle of taxation and representation should go together has been absolutely forgotten.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

thought it would not be right without giving notice to move such an important Amendment, but he would consider putting it down on Report.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

reminded the Committee that there was no proposal whatever before it at that moment, and he would therefore not pursue the subject, and would only reply, in answer to the remark of the noble Marquess opposite, that he always was hymning the praise of the people; that he preferred doing that very much to singing that dirge proclaiming distrust of the people, which was so often heard in that House.

Amendment agreed to.

٭THE EARL OF ONSLOW

moved a new sub-section providing that no person on the Local Government Register of electors as an occupier or part occupier of a dwelling house, the rates payable in respect of which were compounded for by the owner or lessee, should be entitled to attend a meeting or vote as a parochial elector, unless the house or part of the house were separately assessed to the poor rate, the occupier of the same having personally paid all rates made and allowed in respect thereof during the 12 months immediately preceding the 5th day of January before the registration. He said, this Amendment would bring up once more for discussion the compound householder, but in an entirely new capacity—that of an administrator of the Poor Law. The first proposal in reference to the compound householder came before their Lordships on the suggestion of Lord Balfour to eliminate the Register of Parliamentary electors from the Registers on which these local elections were to take place. That proposal, if it ultimately had their Lordships' approval, would have the effect of removing from the completed Register the lodger, the service voter, and the freeholder. Those three elements in the administration of the Poor Law for the most part comprised persons recruited from a class less likely themselves to become recipients of Poor Law relief. He voted in favour of Lord Balfour's Amendment, for he would have been unable otherwise to stand up later in the Debate, and ask for their Lordships' sanction to the great principle that only those who paid rates should vote away the rates. They were thus asked to include in the Register people who neither paid rates themselves nor through the instrumentality of others. Though he would like to see these men upon the Register, to arrive at the paradise of Utopia Ave must pass through the purgatory of Laputa. He had no objection to extending the suffrage as wide as they liked to make it, provided they observed one rule, and one only—namely, that those who called the tune should also pay the piper. But the administration of the Poor Law was a subject requiring that cool-headed impartiality which was generally associated with the administration of justice rather than with local government. The policy adopted hitherto, he pointed out, had been to place the administration in the hands of those who were elected by the ratepayers, not, however, on the principle of giving one vote to the man who had a large stake in the parish and one to the man who paid a small rate, but on the principle that he who paid largely should be largely represented. It had been said that a harsh administration of the Poor Law had been brought about, but he did not agree that harsh and strict administration were synonymous. Before the nominated members were placed upon the Boards of Guardians in London, the administration of the Poor Law was distinctly of a harsh character. Since that time it bad become far more humane. What ho feared was that the introduction of the elective element in the manner proposed would tend to cause the philanthropy which distinguished the present time to degenerate into weak sentimentality; there was a danger that they might be tempted to do not the right thing, but the easy thing, by giving away outdoor relief with a lavish hand. Results might follow similar to those which had already nearly brought this country to ruin, and had spread wide misery and demoralisation among the poorer classes. If their Lordships referred to the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1834, they would find the picture presented was something terrible. They would find that the law had been carried out in a manner contrary to its letter and spirit; that it destroyed all distinctions between the prudent and the idle. Such a condition of things could hardly be contemplated without a feeling of dismay. How had that state of things been remedied? Not by a complete change in the system of the Poor Law; not by handing over its administration to a State Department, or by providing for it out of the funds of the State; but by establishing that system of administration which had worked so well for the people of this country during the last 60 years. Their Lordships were now asked at a single stroke by this Bill to sweep away an administration which had proved eminently successful. If according to the new departure proposed in this Bill the administration of the Poor Law was handed over to those who did not directly pay rates, be feared they would bring back again those evils of jobbery, confusion, and malversation which, in the words of the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1834, so widely prevailed previous to that period. No doubt great differences of opinion existed on the subject of the administration of outdoor relief. Some would extend, whilst others would diminish it. If it were not so, differences so wide would not appear in the Returns from various parts of the country. In Wales, of the whole amount spent in Poor Law relief, 80 per cent. was outdoor, while in Shropshire it was 40 per cent. In Whitechapel it was very small, while in the City of London it was very large. He had bis own views on the subject of outdoor relief, but they would have no weight with their Lordships. He would prefer to call in the testimony of a noble Lord in that House, who had had considerable experience of local administration, and to whose opinion their Lordships would attach great weight. The noble Earl, now Leader of the House, was Chairman of a Committee appointed to consider the relation of the Poor Law and charities, and in a paragraph of the Report which he drew up, and which was endorsed without demur by every one of his colleagues, the noble Earl said— We cannot too strongly insist on the disastrous results which are certain to follow from outdoor relief if it be not very carefully administered and kept within narrow limits, not only in bringing heavy burdens on the ratepayers, but, what is far more important, in demoralising the working classes by the discouragement of thrift and honesty. He entirely concurred in those words, and ho thought, if they attempted to divorce rate paying from representation, the result would be that they would largely increase outdoor relief and would produce that demoralisation which was foreshadowed by the Leader of the House himself. But, more than that, they would, he was sure, bring about a great deal of friction in our country districts, as, for example, in the case of the village which had been mentioned by Lord Harrow by, in which there were 16 farmers, 13 small householders, and 44 compound householders. Did they think that if the 44 compound householders voted in favour of extravagant outdoor relief there would not be created a feeling of hostility in the breasts of those other poor people who would have to pay the rates, and who would feel that, while their neighbours living in cottages the rates of which had been compounded for were able to provide for themselves out of the poor fund, they themselves, not less poor, would be called upon to pay for it because they would be outvoted in the demand for an increase of rates? He did not plead in any way in this Amendment for the interests of the rich against the poor. All he asked their Lordships to do was to safeguard that wise administration of the Poor Law with which they were familiar, and which they believed to be essential to the working classes themselves. He had not heard from any noble Lord on either side of the House one argument in favour of compounding as an abstract principle. They were only told that it was so convenient that it would be almost impossible to abolish it. He had no acquaintance with the affairs of Scotland, but he hoped the noble Lords familiar with Scotch matters would enlighten the Committee as to the manner in which the rates were collected directly from the voters in that country The difficulty of collecting the rates from small holders would, be hoped, be surmounted; but, whether or not they applied the principle of the Amendment in toto, he hoped, at any rate, that the House would not refuse to apply it to the rural districts, where rents do not respond to the rise or fall of the rates as they do in the towns. Competition for houses in towns enabled the landlords to make rents respond readily to any considerable increase in the rates. It had been said that this Amendment would involve wide disfranchisement. He did not deny that that might be so in some cases; but already the Bill, in compelling electors to vote at the poll instead of by voting papers, contained a wide measure of disfranchisement. He would be quite willing, if the House so desired, to limit the operation of the proposed clause to those who should hereafter come upon the rate books; in other words, he would consent to exclude from its operation all those at present upon the Local Government Register, leaving it to time and to the changes in the Register to bring in a new class of voters, all being direct ratepayers. There was a wide difference between the Parliamentary and the local franchises. The Parliamentary franchise covered a great number of subjects, whereas the local one consisted in levying the rate and providing for its expenditure, and therefore different rules might well be applied in the latter case. Noble Lords on both sides of the House would agree that it would be impossible for them to raise the rents of their cottages. In the event of rates increasing very largely in the rural districts, farmers would have to do with less labour and to lay down more land to pasture; while the labourers would be found flocking into the towns, and increasing the difficulty now existing there. If the plural vote could not be maintained because it was unsuited to the democratic times in which we live, at least let them have one ratepayer one vote. Should any attempt succeed in placing the spending of the rates in the hands of those who did not feel the incidence of the rates, they would undermine the system of the Poor Laws, would introduce discord into our villages, and would strike a fatal blow at one of the main principles of English liberty, which had existed ever since the days of Ship-money, and which rested upon the maintenance of the close relationship between taxation and representation.

Amendment moved, In page 21, line 12, after Sub-section (3). to insert as a new Sub-section: ("(4) Provided that no person whose name is on the Local Government Register of electors as an occupier of a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house, the rates payable in respect of which house are compounded for by the owner or lessee thereof, shall be entitled to attend a meeting or vote as a parochial elector unless such house or part of a house is separately assessed to the poor rate, and the occupier of the same shall have personally paid all rates made and allowed in respect thereof during the 12 months immediately preceding the 5th day of January next before the registration").—(Ike Earl of Onslow.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would not follow the noble Earl into a general disquisition upon the question of compounding, which was disposed of the other night; nor would he go into the noble Earl's observations upon the general principles of the Poor Law; but he would confine himself to the clause just proposed, which he would show the House was absolutely impracticable. In the first place, there was no machinery for ascertaining whether a person who had voted at a parochial meeting had or had not paid the rates for 12 months. If they wanted to do that, they must amend the Ballot Act. Who was to question it? Who was to allow or disallow it? Was there to be a scrutiny? If not, there was nothing to show whether a man's vote was good or bad. In the case of houses let in tenements, for instance, if separate assessments were required to be made for each room, containing, possibly, five or six persons, they would be introducing into parochial legislation a principle which they could not contemplate with any kind of equanimity. Again, there were a great number of persons who paid their rents weekly, and it would be most unjust to require that such persons, who were liable to leave at the end of a week, and who very possibly would leave in a few weeks or months, should be obliged to pay the rate for six or 12 mouths in order to qualify for a vote. That was one difficulty which stood in the way of the repeal of the Compounding Acts generally. Quite apart from the general question of compounding, this clause was so impracticable that Her Majesty's Government could not assent to its being inserted in the Hill.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

My Lords, I think it is unfortunate that we should find ourselves continually engaged upon different parts of the Bill in more or less incomplete discussions upon the subject of compounding, and although the noble Earl has declined to go, upon this Amendment, into the question of compounding generally, it seems to me that it would be convenient, if it were possible (I do not know whether it is or not), to have a general discussion upon the subject of compounding with the view of avoiding, if practicable, the further references to it which are contained in the various Amendments put down. We have already made one or two Amendments which touch upon the question of compounding, but they are not at present of a, very important character. We have (yesterday) put an end to the power of the Parish Council to compel compounding in the future, and we have also provided that the only parochial rate should be a separate rate, and that it should not be a rate which should be capable of being compounded. I would remind the House of the opinions expressed by Lord Monk Bretton, a former Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, and I would direct your Lordships' attention to what has been laid down by Sir Erskine May, who lays it down that, in Hills not confined to taxation but which imposed pecuniary burdens on the people, the Lords may make any Amendments (provided they do not alter the intention of the Commons with regard to the amount of the proposed rate or charge, whether by increase or reduction) as to duration, mode of assessment, levying, collection, appropriation, management, or the persons who shall pay, receive, manage, or control it, or the limits within which it is proposed to be levied. It is but fair to say that the precedents quoted by Sir Erskine May do not appear to cover the whole breadth of his assertion. His authority is, however, undoubted, and is respected in this House as much as in the other. Your Lordships may, therefore, reasonably assume that any proposition laid down in such positive terms by Sir Erskine May will, in the other House, at all events, receive a good deal of support and acceptance. It appears to me questionable how far it is competent to us to consider such an Amendment as this before us which does not profess, as I understand, to alter the law of compounding at all, but merely the Register of electors depending upon the practice of compounding. The Amendment which the noble Lord has now moved, and the subsequent Amendments which he is to move upon Clause 37, affect a much wider question than those points which we were engaged in considering yesterday. Those points related to the new rate, whereas the noble Lord's Amendment raises (he question of compounding in the case of the poor rate itself. It seems to me (and I speak with great hesitation and diffidence on this subject) that, as usual, there are three courses, and probably only three, which it is possible for us to take in relation to this matter, supposing it is competent for us to deal with this question of compounding at all: We might do away with the system of compounding altogether; we might, in the next place, disfranchise the compounding ratepayers, as is practically proposed in the Amendment of the noble Lord, by preventing future compound ratepayers from exercising the vote, though I do not think such a wide measure of disfranchisement would be desirable; or we might adopt the course proposed in the Amendment on the 6th clause by Lord Winchilsea. The noble Lord did not propose to alter the law of compounding, except that he abolished the compulsory law of compounding (which we have already done) and gave the further power to the owner to relieve himself by notice of the obligation to pay rates upon small tenements. I do not see any objection in principle to that proposal. If an owner of houses on whom the burden falls of paying rates for these tenements thinks that under the new Councils the burden of the rates is gradually increasing by the action of those who do not directly pay them, there is nothing inequitable in the proposal to give him permission to relieve himself of that burden, and to insist that in future the direct burden of the rates shall fall upon his tenants. I do not see any objection in principle to that proposal, though it will be a very different matter when we come to consider whether it is a practicable proposal which would afford the owner any real redress from the grievances under which he may suffer. If this proposal were to become law, and were to be adopted to any considerable extent, there is no doubt that great inconvenience would be caused in putting an end to what has been found to be a most convenient administrative system; and I suspect that the odium and unpopularity which would be incurred by any owner who availed himself of the power of transferring the direct payment of rates from himself to small tenants would be such as to prevent the greater number of owners from resorting to this remedy. Then, it appears to me, the further question arises whether the owner has not in his own hands a still more direct and effectual remedy than that which it is proposed to give him. The increase of rates, whether in urban or rural districts, must ultimately tend to the increase of rents. No doubt this result will follow, in different ways and degrees, in urban and rural communities. In urban districts we may, I suppose, assume that the rent is generally a commercial rent— namely, the largest amount which the owner can ask for his house subject to the competition to which he is exposed; but the increasing pressure of rates will assert itself equally upon all the competing owners of houses, and it appears to be inevitable that any considerable increase of rates in towns, however caused, must ultimately, and perhaps at no very long interval, result in an increase of rents in those places. In rural districts the rents of houses are not usually the commercial rents nor the utmost which the owner can obtain. It is suggested that the owner should protect himself against an undue increase of rates by throwing the burden of the rates directly upon the occupier; but he has a much more complete and direct remedy in his own hands if he chooses to avail himself of it—namely, by raising the rents, which in most country districts it is perfectly possible for him to do. I am quite certain that in almost every case the landlord would do this most unwillingly; but in the case of an intolerable increase of rates, he might be compelled to increase his rents, and I have no doubt that indirectly, at some time or other, though not immediately, the increase of the burden of rates would be found to have an effect in the country, as in the urban districts, in an increase of rents. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment said that in rural districts, if a landlord resorted to any such course, the labourers would leave the locality, would migrate to other district's or to large towns, and the farmer would be compelled to employ less labour and to lay down more land for grass. That will be a consequence which will not directly, but must ultimately, come home to the agricultural labourer, to the voter under this Bill himself; and I cannot think that he would be indifferent to this consequence. I believe that, sooner or later, either in the form of increased rent or in diminished employment, or in diminished wages, the consequences of extravagant expenditure of rates will fall upon the agricultural labourer, and that, perhaps not immediately, but sooner or later, he will become aware of these consequences. I believe we all regret very much that no practicable plan has been found by which a more direct connection can be established between these impositions and the payment of rents; but the necessity which now exists for compounding in the poorer districts makes it almost impossible, except at vast inconvenience, to establish such a direct connection. I believe the difficulties of attempting to establish such a direct connection are so great that if we endeavoured to do so we should be compelled to take the course which was taken in 1867 and 1869, and, after an effectual trial, to give up the securities we had endeavoured to impose. I have no doubt that the consequences of this Hill may in some, perhaps in many, localities be increased and extravagant expenditure. There is, however, no way of bringing home the lesson of the injury inflicted on the whole community by that extravagant expenditure but the slow teaching of experience, which perhaps, after all, will be found to come more rapidly than some of us are inclined to anticipate. It seems to me that it would be exceedingly convenient that those who are more practically acquainted with this question should take this opportunity of discussing compounding as a whole, because if it be raised, as it has hitherto been raised, in a piecemeal manner, we shall never arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. There is a fourth course to which I will refer for one moment before I sit down. My noble Friend pointed to the possibility of making the direct payment of rates a qualification, not for the exercise of the vote, but for acting at the Parish or the District Council. Unless some practical plan can be suggested, that is a proposal which is not attended by the inconveniences which accompany any of the other proposals. Such a proposal does not involve any inconvenient disturbance on a largo scale of existing arrangements. All the arguments, and I believe they are forcible, which apply to the necessity of a direct payment of rates by those who are going to vote as to their expenditure, apply with double force in the case of those who are going to make themselves directly responsible for the expenditure of rates: and for those reasons it seems to me that the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend, which I regret was not embodied in a formal Amendment, is one which is well worthy of full consideration.

٭LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, the Committee was in a somewhat peculiar position on this most important question, because the speeches of both the noble Duke opposite and the noble and learned Earl on the Front Bench had the same characteristic. Neither of them contained one word from beginning to end against the principle of making those who voted away the rates responsible, as far as possible, for their payment; both were confined to the practical difficulty of carrying out what they admitted to be a sound principle, and one which ought to be carried out. He knew that there were great difficulties in the matter. The fact that an experiment was tried 25 years ago in regard to the Parliamentary franchise, and that, to a great extent, the steps then taken had had to be retraced, proved that those difficulties existed. But, at the same time, the importance of the principle was so great that they ought not lightly to turn away from the possibility of effecting, at any rate, some improvement in regard to the matter. Those who thought that the direct payment of rates should be a condition of the franchise did not wish to use that condition as a disfranchising measure, but in order to bring home to the people who were to vote away the rates a sense of their responsibility and to induce them to take an intelligent interest in local government. The difficulty was not in knowing who the tenant occupier was, for his name was on every Register, but in finding some means of assessing him, and making him pay directly instead of as at present indirectly; and that, to a great extent, minimised the practical difficulty mentioned by the noble Earl. But if the difficulties were so great, the principle at stake was also an important one; and if it was not possible to diminish the area of compounding, if it was necessary for the practice to continue in large urban districts, large boroughs, and places where difficulties would arise, they should not have been so broadly put into the Bill, and should not have had the provisions of this part of it applied to them. A small amount of fact was worth a great deal of theory, and in this matter they might with advantage consider what was done in large cities and towns and in Scotland. What was done there could be done in the large communities of England if people were minded to do it. The rates in Scot- land were paid half by the occupiers and half by the owners. In Glasgow the persons assessed as occupiers were divided into three great classes. Below £4 the owner paid the rate; those above £4 were divided into two classes—those between £4 and £10, and those above £10. He found that of 73,000 occupiers above £10 none were in default, and of the 83,899 occupiers rated at between £4 and £10 a year, only 16 per cent. were in default during the past year. That percentage was less than the deduction allowed to owners, who paid the whole of the rates under the Compounding Act in England, and therefore in that respect it did not seem that the present system had any advantage over a system of direct collection. Some of the objections which were urged to the latter system might be met if the Rating Authority offered some bonus to the occupier in return for prompt payment, or to induce them to pay with as little trouble as possible. It was said that the small amounts into which some of the rates would have to be divided constituted a serious objection to direct rating. It did not matter for his purpose whether the rate was paid to the rate collector by the occupier or by the owner, provided that the occupier knew the amount of his payment which represented rent and the amount which represented rates. In some cases it was an absolute advantage to the occupier that he should know what he paid for rent and what for rates. The noble Duke opposite was of opinion that rents would rise as rates rise; but that was not what the friends of this Amendment had in view. They wanted to bring home to the minds of the voters that a rise in rates was a different thing from a rise in rent. He was afraid that if this distinction were not made occupiers would be rather apt to attribute any increase in the amount to the rapacity of the landlord—a view in which they would be encouraged by some of the less scrupulous of the supporters of the noble Lords opposite—rather than to the rise in rates through the maladministration of the public funds. The noble Duke said that in the course of time the occupier would learn wisdom; but an occupier if he felt himself aggrieved could remove to another place, and the burden of his mal- administration and false policy would ultimately fall upon the landlord, who could not so easily remove himself, or if he sold his property would have to sell it under the disadvantage of the increased rate. He had no desire to dogmatise, but he would impress upon their Lordships the extreme importance of this principle; and one of the chief things which had induced him to rise was to express a hope, in conjunction with the noble Duke opposite, that the House might have a discussion upon this subject once for all, and sec whether the suggestions which had been made might not be incorporated in a workable clause either at this or at some future stage.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Undoubtedly the speech of the noble Duke opposite affects very considerably the prospects of this Amendment. It entirely abandons all hope of modifying the Compounding Clause, and he and the noble Earl opposite, without in any way denying, so far as I can see, the danger to which the ratepayers will be exposed, deny that there is any possibility of protecting them from that danger, and the only thing is to look on and let them suffer such loss as may be the result of this legislation. The noble Duke thinks they will be able to protect themselves. I think in the country districts that is very possible; but surely that is not a very smiling prospect which he holds out to us as to the future state of things in our country districts. Practically, by this measure and by the principles which are adopted in its defence, the ratepayer and the landlord are to be remitted to their natural powers of defence. The law will not protect them. The law exposes them to the danger of a very large, and in some respects an almost unlimited, contribution levied by persons who have no interest whatever in making that contribution equitable or economical. There can be no doubt that this is a considerable danger, but the noble Duke points out that the very persons who impose this rate are themselves cottagers of the landlords, and that the landlords, if pushed into a corner and pressed too hard, have the power of punishment in their own hands, in that they may either raise the rent or get rid of the cottager. But considering the area over which this measure is exercised, considering how heavy the punishment will be compared with the offence, considering the bitterness that it will cause, and considering the necessary investigations which it must prompt and permit into the mode in which the compound cottagers have voted, I cannot think that the proposal holds out any prospect of continuing those peaceful and friendly relations which have hitherto existed in the country districts between the owners of cottage property and those who inhabit it. I feel that you are remitting us to a, kind of civil war, arising from the legal processes of the rent-raiser, from the issue of writs, and that that is the only defence you will provide for the ratepayer, who must no longer look to Parliament to protect him, but must protect himself in the best way he can. I view that prospect with some apprehension. I fear that in some cases, at all events in the case of poor owners, the indication given will be too readily followed, and that very great suffering and very great contention and strife and bitterness will be the result of it. Whether it is possible for us now at this stage to protect the ratepayer, after the speech of the noble Duke, I have some considerable doubt. I do not mean to say that we might not get a majority; but whether it would be a majority that would enable us to overcome difficulties elsewhere I think is much more doubtful. I should have been glad to see some such protection as that which my noble and learned Friend has hinted at; but I do not think that even that protection will at all cover the extent of the danger to which the ratepayer will be exposed. Under these circumstances, all I can say is that if my noble Friend presses this Motion to a Division, I shall certainly vote with him, but he will of course exercise his own discretion. I have, however, very considerable doubt whether, after the speech of the noble Duke, there is any prospect of usefully modifying the compounding law with any use for the object which is proposed to be attained.

٭THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, after the speech of the noble Duke opposite, and the remarks which had fallen from the noble Marquess, who with himself had been endeavouring to attain similar results—one in the case of the new rate to be imposed, the other in the case of the old rate to be imposed for parochial purposes. He had to express his regret to find he was not supported in his proposal by the noble Duke, opposite and those who acted with him; but in the face of that opposition he felt it would be useless to persevere with the Amendment, feeling satisfied it would not receive the support of the noble Duke's friends in another place. The wiser course, therefore, would be to withdraw the Amendment and to leave the matter to be decided upon those already passed with the same object.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

VISCOUNT GALWAY

, who had placed the following Amendment on the Paper— In page 21. line 18, after the word ("Board"), to insert the words ("provided that the words" or any voter who makes such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read' of Clause 26 of the First Schedule, Part 1.,of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872, shall not apply In the taking of votes under this Act. said, he did not propose to move it, but would like to ask the noble Lord a question. Clause 41 enacted a great portion of the Ballot Act, but there was a curious term, "subject to adaptations." He did not know whether that referred to the Local Government Board having a freehand in the matter or not.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that that was believed to be much the more convenient plan. There was no reason to suggest that the Local Government Board would not make the best arrangement that could be made. It was a comparatively executive function.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked whether there were not, contested questions which the Local Government Board had to deal with—for instance, the question of the illiterates? What would the Local Government Board do with that?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Local Government Board could only frame the Rules subject to the provisions of this Act. It was not left with a free hand, but was to act subject to all the provisions of this Act, of which there were a great many.

٭THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

pointed out that whereas these officers should act for three years, it was proposed in Sub-section (a) of Clause 20 that one-third should retire every year. What be objected to was the power given to the County Council to dissolve a whole Board at the expiration of three years upon no evidence whatever. That might be done if the County Council thought it expedient; but who was to put the Council in motion? Was a County Council to say that certain members were to retire altogether at the end of the third year What evidence was to be produced at the end of the third year to the County Council that this proposal was just? Clause 20 provided that the County Council might act if they thought it expedient; that seemed to be entirely contrary to Clause 23, which provided that— Where the County Council upon the request of the Council of any urban district (other than a borough) in their county consider, as respects Such Urban Council, that it would be expedient to provide for the simultaneous retirement of the whole of the members of such Urban District Council, they may direct that the members of such Council shall retire together.

The clauses were contradictory.

Amendment moved, In page 21. line 24, to leave out Provisos (a) and (b)—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the noble Duke's objection was perfectly reasonable. He thought the principle contained in Clause 23 was the right one—namely, that the County Council should only act at the request of the Board of Guardians. If the noble Duke would move to amend the clause in that way, he would be perfectly satisfied.

THE DIKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

consented to make the suggested amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

asked whether the noble Duke would leave the matter for the Report stage?

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

assented.

LORD BELPER

agreed that the County Council ought only to have the power to act in this way when requested so to act by the Board. It was clear that the two clauses were absolutely out of harmony, one referring to an Urban and the other to a Sanitary Authority. He confessed that he did not like a power of this sort to be given to a County Council. As far as he knew, this was absolutely the first time such a power had been given to a County Council. It was no doubt proper that the administrative duties of a County Council should be increased where it was desirable in the interests of the county; but it was not advisable to give them powers which might be used in certain cases for political purposes by political partisans. The clause did not merely refer to the first election, and this would give power to the County Councils at any time to retire the elected Guardians. It would meet the difficulty if words were put in saying that it should be at the request of the Guardians themselves.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the clause was not originally in the Bill, but was suggested by a very eminent person opposed to the present Government. He entirely differed from Lord Belper in thinking it was inconvenient to give this power to the County Council. He thought no more convenient power than this could be given them. It was difficult to see what the noble Lord had in his mind in saying that political questions might arise. He was glad the clause had been introduced into the Bill. He entirely sympathised with the noble Lord's desire to avoid repeated elections, and for those reasons hoped that the noble Lord would accept the alteration proposed, that the County Council should only act on the request of the Board of Guardians.

LORD BELPER

said, with regard to political considerations coming in, if there were an election when county politics were running high, an attempt might be made to get an advantage. However, he did not wish to press the matter.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

moved— In Sub-section (6)(b), page 21, line 34, to leave out the words ("whole of the") and insert the words ("Board of"). He did not know whether it was intended that they should go on during their natural lives.

Amendment moved, In Sub-section (6) (b), page 21, line 34, to leave out the words ("whole of the") and insert the words ("Board of").—(The Earl of Dun-raven.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, this would not be an improvement on the drafting as it stood. The words seemed quite clear, and there was no reason for altering them.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

moved— In line 87. after the word ("year") to leave out the word ("they") and insert the words ("each successive Hoard").

Amendment negatived.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

pointed out that the unlucky date, the 15th April, was mentioned for the first time in this clause. The date should not fall during the Easter Holidays and should not he fixed during that period.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that had been the date fixed for a long series of years, and was not inconvenient. It had never been complained of, and it was undesirable to alter a date which had been so long adopted.

Verbal Amendments made.

EARL STANHOPE

begged leave to withdraw the following Amendment:— In page 22, line 2. to leave out the words ("not more than two other persons") and insert the words ("district Aldermen not exceeding one-fourth of the whole number of the members of the Board").

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Verbal Amendments made.

٭THE EARL or ONSLOW

proposed to leave out the words "on the first election." He understood the proviso was for the purpose of preserving the continuity of administration as far as possible by the appointment on Hoards of Guardians, in addition to the chairman and vice chairman, of two gentlemen from outside who were to be ex officio Guardians. The appointment was for three years, which seemed to be a very short period to preserve the continuity of administration. He proposed, therefore, that they should continue as long as they were willing to act.

Amendment moved, In page 22, line 5, to leave out the words ("on the first election").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it would be undesirable to perpetuate this particular kind of privilegium in favour of a certain set of gentlemen for a particular time. There would have to be a separate Register kept, and the object was to elect men who had experience in administration and whom it was desirable to keep on the Board. He was not particularly enamoured of the system of co-optation, but those who were in favour of it would find it better to leave the clause as it was.

THE DUKE of RUTLAND

asked whether the noble Earl would move the omission of the co-optation altogether?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

could not do that. His reason for objecting was that it would be found, as was always the case, to strengthen one particular political Party.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

VISCOUNT CROSS

moved a new subsection providing that one-third of the Assessment Committee should consist of those who would but for the Act have been ex officio Guardians. He did not intend to revive the old question about the ex officio Guardians continuing in office. The Amendment related entirely to the Assessment Committees, and had nothing to do with the ordinary duties of the Boards of Guardians, to whose number he did not wish to add. He would have preferred that the co-optative Guardians should not have been added. The duties of the committee were connected with the administration of the Poor Law, involving matters of great intricacy and nicety, and they ought to be, at all events, carried on systematically. If all the Guardians were elected for only three years there was a danger of a break in continuity. The object of this Amendment was to avoid that break; and for that purpose he urged that Justices who were versed in the business which such committees had to transact should continue to take part in their deliberations.

Amendment moved, In page 22, after line 9, to insert as a new Sub-section—("(8.) Notwithstanding anything in this section contained, in the appointing the Assessment Committee of the Union for the investigation and supervision of valuations and other purposes under 'The Union Assessment Committee Act, l862,' one-third at least of such committee shall consist of those who would but for this Act have been ex officio Guardians").—(The Viscount Cross.")

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought there was no reason to fear that the elective members of Boards of Guardians would not perform satisfactorily the duties of Assessment Committees. It was to a Board's interest that there should be, as far as possible, a fair and just assessment. There would always be found upon the Boards men capable of performing the work. No doubt it was an extremely difficult duty, and required a great deal of attention and care; but he much doubted whether the proposal of the noble Viscount would act as well as he seemed to think if these gentlemen were only brought in for this particular purpose. He much doubted whether the system would work.

Amendment negatived.

٭LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

, in moving a proviso that the clause should not apply to Boards of Guardians within the Metropolitan area, said, the Amendment raised an important issue—namely, whether or not the Poor Law in the Metropolis should be administered by bodies elected in the manner suggested in the Bill. He was particularly anxious that this matter should be argued as a Poor Law issue, and not mixed up with that of the continuation of the Vestries in their present form, which would have been the case if the Amendment had been put down on Clause 30. It was, in his opinion, a mistake to attempt to deal with the complicated problems surrounding the administration of the Poor Law in largo cities in a measure which proposed to set up Parish Councils in communities with as small a population as 200. He admitted, however, that there would be a great practical difficulty in drawing a line which should exclude from the operation of the Bill the larger boroughs and cities in regard to the administration of the Poor Law, for this reason: that, owing to the confusion which existed among Local Authorities, there were, ho was informed, very few of the larger cities which had areas coterminous with the Poor Law Unions. There would be some difficulty in having Boards of Guardians not all elected in the same way. If boroughs, as such, were excluded, those representing areas inside the boroughs would be elected in one way, and those outside the boroughs in another. But that difficulty would not occur in the case of London; if the area to which the Metropolitan Poor Law Fund was made applicable by the Act of 1869 was excluded from the Bill, it could be done without any of the inconveniences which he had mentioned. The Act dealing with the subject had the great advantage that it applied to some extent the principle of equality of rating for certain Poor Law purposes to the area to which ho had referred, and that area was so framed as not to have outside it any part of the Poor Law Unions included within it. The noble Earl who was Chairman of the Loudon County Council (Lord Rosebery) had feelingly described the great confusion of London areas. There was the Registration London; the London for police purposes; the London of the County Council; the London of the Water Companies; and others, none of them having the same area as any other. The area he was asking their Lordships to exclude from the operation of the Bill was very nearly that of the County of London, the sole difference between them being that the hamlet of Penge was within the county area but without that of the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund, being for Poor Law purposes within the Union of Croydon. The first point he desired to make was that this area had long been the subject of separate treatment on account of its great importance. It was an absolute unique aggregation of population, which demanded separate consideration in such a matter as this. It was unique also in the complexity and difficulty of the problems which the administration of the Poor Law in London presented. There was not only the fact that people came from all parts of our own country to London and drifted there into a helpless condition, but also the fact that London had a great attractive power for persons in distressed circumstances from other countries. There were two great difficulties connected with the subject—the method in which poor relief should be administered, and the problem which occurred from time to time as to the finding of work for what wore called "the unemployed." The danger of ill-considered action on either of those points was obviously very great. The Government had not attempted to minimise the danger. They admitted, as he understood, that there was a danger, but they said, "If you trust to the good sense of the people all those dangers will he overcome." The dangers and the issues at stake were too great to he lightly entered upon, and therefore their Lordships should pause before allowing the change that was proposed with respect to London to be made in this Bill. It might be said against him that because of his present action he must be held to be an advocate for all the anomalies and all the difficulties which now existed in London government. But that was not his plea. His plea was that there was so much that required consideration in the future municipal government of London that it was extremely undesirable to touch the fringe of the question in this measure and to pass a measure which, even its warmest advocate admitted, was not complete, but was only an instalment of what they desired. So far from minimising the difficulties of dealing with London government, he believed that this Bill would greatly increase them. There was in the air a proposal for further equalisation of the rates over London. The richer Unions were inclined to oppose the proposition, but it was a fair subject for discussion. If, however, this Bill passed in its present form, a. great additional argument would be put into the month of the richer parishes against the proposal. Not only would the richer parishes be made responsible for the expenditure of the poorer ones, but the parishes which were both rich and well administered would run the risk of bearing not only the burden of those not so rich, but also the burden caused by mal-administration. Many of the Party to which he had the honour to belong desired to see greater equality of rating over the Metropolitan area, but this was it new departure, and was not complete in itself, and increased rather than removed difficulties. Had the time which ought to he given to so important a subject been devoted to it? He did not say that their Lordships were entitled to sit in judgment on the proceedings in another place, hut they were entitled to see whether any decision come to in another place had received due consideration and was the settled conviction of that branch of the Legislature. The question whether London Poor Law should be included in the Bill came on in the House of Commons on January 2, the day after the memorable compromise was arrived at. The question came on unexpectedly, and there was a very short discussion upon it. Only four speeches were made, and the whole time given to it was less than an hour and a half. The President of the Local Government Board absolutely declined to discuss the question upon its merits, and in the Division upon it less than one-fourth of the Members of the House of Commons were present and less than one-half of those who represented Metropolitan constituencies. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the House of Lords was free to an unusual extent to deal with this question. Another point was that they were asked to make a new departure upon a complicated subject full of danger, and which had been but little discussed. They were asked to do away with ex officio Guardians, and the plural vote would soon be a thing of the past. The result would be that in some Unions those who, if not actually in receipt of relief themselves, were bordering upon it would have a controlling voice in the election of Poor Law Guardians. He believed that no inconsiderable number of persons in receipt of outdoor relief would be on the roll of the occupying householders. That fact alone ought to be sufficient to make their Lordships pause. If they wanted an object-lesson of what might happen under this Bill let them look at Bethnal Green. At the present time there was probably less plural voting there than in any other Metropolitan Union; and, comparatively speaking, it had hardly any effect on the result. The Board was now elected very much on the principle of "One Man One Vote," and there was no check on the proceedings of that Board. Bethnal Green had long enjoyed the pre-eminence of bad management; the Guardians had defied the Local Government Board for years, and had refused to make an addition to their infirmary which had been pressed upon them by the Local Government Board. It had been pointed out in the Board-room of the Union how easy it was to evade or defy the requisitions of the Local Government Board. Not long since a Strike Circular was issued by the Local Government Board, which set forth two conditions upon which relief should be granted to those out. of work—either the offer of the workhouse or the requirement of a certain amount of work. The way in which that Circular was worked by the Bethnal Green Hoard of Guardians, he was informed, had resulted in recent times in an indefinite amount of relief for a merely nominal return in the way of any task. It had been stated in many newspapers that 236 persons in one department of Bethnal Green Workhouse were only allowed six towels twice in the course of the week. It was also reputed that a regular system of blackmailing had grown up in that poor-house, whereby those who were able to obtain money from their friends could get clean towels and other comforts from those whose business it was to keep them in store. Many other instances might be quoted. He quoted the case of Bethnal Green Union because it approached most nearly to the system of election proposed by the Bill, and he gave it as a typical instance of what might be apprehended from an extension of the principle. If the Metropolis was included in the Bill, it was certain that they would have contests fought on political lines for each of the Local Bodies—County Councils, District Councils, and Boards of Guardians. In fact, preparations were already being made to this end by the Party represented by noble Lords opposite. The London Reform Union had passed a resolution that all these contests were to be conducted on political lines. He therefore asked their Lordships to hesitate and to make fuller inquiry before they handed over the administration of the Boor Law in London, with all its complex problems, to bodies elected as the Bill provided.

Amendment moved, In page 22, after line 9, add the words ("Provided that this clause shall not apply to the Board of Guardians of any Union or parish within the area to which the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund applies").—(The Lord Balf our of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that doubtless the noble Lord would not be surprised to hear that he was not prepared to accept the Amendment. In the first place, he wished to remark that he thought it was extremely inconvenient that they should take upon themselves1 to lay down the law as to the length of time which should be occupied by the other House on any particular portion of a Bill. As to this particular clause not having been sufficiently considered, he would say that it was in the Bill originally, and the only inference to be drawn from what the noble Lord said was that the clause was so generally approved in the other House that there was no necessity for a long discussion. He entirely demurred, however, to drawing any conclusions at all from what passed in the other House. With respect to the Amendment, he could not understand why London should be singled out in the whole of the Kingdom for special disqualification. If their proposals with respect to the new constitution of Boards of Guardians were good for the country at large, then surely they were good for London. If, however, they were not sound, why should they be applied to the rest of the country? Was London so much less intelligent, so much less capable of governing itself, so much less to be trusted, that it was to be put into leading strings which wore not necessary for the rest of the country? That was a principle upon which it was impossible to proceed. He should say that London had average intelligence, if not more. It did not seem to him to be a wise principle, or one which would give satisfaction, to lay down a scheme and then to say that they distrusted a particular portion of the community. He saw nothing to lead him to suppose that the system provided in the Bill was less suitable to London than to any other part of the country. With regard to the noble Lord's remarks upon indiscriminate out-relief, if one were to judge from the practice of London, he should say that the danger of indiscriminate relief being given was less in London than in the rural districts. There was no par of the Kingdom where out-relief was so sparingly given as in the Metropolis. As to the case of Bethnal Green that was a Board of Guardians elected under the present system.

LORD BALFOUR or BURLEIGH

I chose it as one which is the nearest illustration of what the new system will be for this reason—that it is the one where there is the least plural voting at the present time.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Lord could not go away from the fact that the Guardians on this particular Board were elected on the system of plural voting. He repeated, that he saw no reason whatever for making the proposed exception as regarded London. Me thought that to exclude London would be a cause of the gravest discontent and would lead to agitation. He felt certain that if the proposed exception were made, no long time would elapse before it would have to he abandoned. It was not a position they could permanently maintain; and unless they could do that, ho did not think it would be wise to expose themselves to an abandonment of their position after, probably, an agitation which could lead to no good results. Therefore, as a matter of policy, it was not judicious to attempt to maintain such a position. For these reasons he must oppose the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not understand the proposal of my noble Friend in the light which the noble Earl opposite has understood it. I do not understand my noble Friend to propose the permanent exclusion of London with respect to Poor Law reform or reform of Boards of Guardians. The whole case of my noble Friend was that this proposal had been so suddenly introduced, so little canvassed, and so little considered in the other House that there has not been time to give the notice which is necessary to gain the co-operation of those outside best acquainted with the subject.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The Poor Law part was always in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You cannot deal with the Poor Law part without dealing with the Vestries, and you have had to deal with the Vestries in a most clumsy clause.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The case of the Boards of Guardians is really separate from the case of the Vestries. They are really two questions. I argued the question entirely upon the basis that the two questions—whatever might he my opinion about the Vestry—were separate.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will only say it is not the opinion of the Vestries themselves. The Vestries themselves have made strong representa- tions against being included in this Bill at the present time—not that they object to the main enactments of the Bill, but because the matter has been so little before them and they have had so little time for consideration. Considering that you are dealing with a singularly complicated law, they say it is a most unwise proceeding to force legislation upon this question at such a time. I quite understand that if we did exclude the Metropolis it would be a matter which would require to be dealt with by very early legislation. But what I understand is that it is legislation which ought to be circumspect and deliberate, legislation which should give time to all those interested to represent their views to the Government. By springing this Vestry clause quite late upon the other House of Parliament was very unwise. The Bill in its entirety has not been submitted to the population of London in a manner sufficient to enable them to form a judgment upon it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The noble Marquess opposite appears to be under an entire misapprehension with regard to the point under discussion. It is quite true that the Vestries have objected to their inclusion in the Bill upon the ground that that portion of the Bill which deals with the London Vestries was introduced at a late stage in the other House. In the original Bill there was nothing dealing with the London Vestries, but the London Vestries are fully and entirely separate from the Boards of Guardians. Loudon Vestries arc nearly in the position of District Councils; they deal with sanitary matters, lighting, roads, and other questions. But the Boards of Guardians are separate, and the dealing with the Boards of Guardians in no way prejudices the question of Vestries. It cannot be said that there was not sufficient notice with regard to the Boards of Guardians. It has always been a portion of this measure. It was contemplated from the very first that the alteration with regard to Boards of Guardians was to be throughout the country. Therefore, the notice given to London has been neither more nor less than the notice given with regard to Boards of Guardians all over the country.

٭LORD MONKSWELL

said, he should be able to show when the time came that the opinion of the Vestries was divided. Some Vestries were in favour of being brought under the operation of this Bill. Their Lordships by a recent vote had retained the restrictions as to nominated Guardians—restrictions which wore peculiar to Loudon. Now the Committee proposed to inflict further restrictions upon London—restrictions which did not apply to any other part of the Kingdom. Noble Lords opposite would appear to court the opposition of the majority of the ratepayers.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

Will the noble Lord say what restrictions are being proposed? My proposal is to leave things as they are.

٭LORD MONKSWELL

replied that it was restriction as compared with the rest of the Kingdom. Their Lordships were doing away with plural voting and ex officio members, and voting papers in the country, yet they proposed to retain these restrictions in London. Noble Lords were absolutely inconsistent. As to the matter not having been properly considered in the House of Commons, it seemed to him perfectly obvious that one of the first reforms of the Poor Law must be the abolition of the plural vote and voting papers in London as elsewhere. The Marquess of Salisbury had given away Lord Balfour's case when ho said that it would be perfectly impossible to prevent the London County Council from successfully obtaining powers given to members of other County Councils to have ex officio seats on Boards of Guardians at a very early date. If it would be perfectly impossible to prevent the London County Council obtaining these powers, which only touch the fringe of the subject, it would be equally perfectly impossible to prevent the ratepayers of London from having their own views carried into effect at the next General Election. The case of Bethnal Green which had been cited went for very little. He did not know enough of the management of Bethnal Green to go into details. But assuming that it was mismanaged under the present system, could it be mismanaged any more under the system which was to be applied to the rest of the country under this Bill? Lord Balfour said there was now in Bethnal Green pretty much the same system as would be set up in other parts of the country if this Bill passed, inasmuch as there was now very little plural voting in Bethnal Green. In many parts of the East End of London the Poor Law was extremely well administered, and the administration was steadily improving. It was to the interest of the ratepayers that out-relief should be restricted to the minimum, because under the Common Poor Fund every Poor Law Union had 9d.a day out of the fund in respect of every indoor pauper. The consequence was, that it was absolutely beneficial to the ratepayers of every Union in London that the workhouse should be filled to overflowing before any out-relief was given at all. In setting up the Common Poor Fund very stringent guarantees had been taken against excessive out-relief. If out-relief was given, it was bound to be given by the ratepayers of the Unions, and at their expense only. Therefore, the existence of the Common Poor Fund was an additional reason why London should be treated under the Bill like the rest of the country.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

I am in doubt as to the course to be taken on this Amendment. From the large number of intimations I am receiving daily a large number of persons and Local Authorities in London appear to be completely taken by surprise by some provisions in this Bill, and they are only just becoming aware of the change which the Bill proposes to make in the government of London. But if I understand correctly what fell from the President of the Council, this provision affecting a change in the mode of elections of Guardians has always been in the Bill and applied to London from the very commencement. The case of London was not particularly raised in connection with Clause 20 in another place, and if, as I gather, it is a fact that this provision was always in the Bill and was always understood to be applicable to London just in the same manner as to other parts of the country, then it appears to me that, if no serious objection had been taken to it by the authorities connected with the administration of Poor Law relief in the Metropolis they had ample notice and ample opportunity of raising the question upon this clause. The case appears to me to be quite different from that of the Vestries and the other matters in Clause 30, of which, by the acknowledgment of the Members of the Government themselves, very little notice was given and very little notice taken in the discussions. I think the two cases stand on a different footing, and I should be inclined to hope that the noble Lord opposite will nor press his Amendment as regards Guardians.

٭LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, that the issue as to the Poor Law administration of London was raised on Clause 30 in the House of Commons, which applied the Bill to the Administrative County of London. After what had fallen from the noble Duke opposite he could not hope in the end to be successful, and he would not now press his Amendment.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 (Names of county districts and District Councils).

٭THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I move the Amendment which stands in Lord Kimberley's name.

Amendment moved, In page 22, line 17, after the word ("Parliament"), to insert the words ("unless the context otherwise requires").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 (Chairman of Council to be Justice).

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

complained that this clause would add to the Bench the chairman of every small Local Hoard which would become a District Council. In the North of England there were many urban districts with a population under 500 inhabitants. A most stalwart Radical and strenuous supporter of the Government had, in a recent speech, pointed out that there were in England 400 or 500 local government districts which were governed by Local Boards, and of this number there were 126 in the West Riding of Yorkshire, all of which would under the Bill become District Councils. Of these districts 52 had a population of less than 2,000, 17 had less than 1,500, nine less than 1,000, and two less than 500. Against the Local Board districts there were 31 rural districts In the West Riding, rive of which had a population of over 20,000 and two with over 35,000; and yet under this Bill these districts would only have one District Council, with exactly the same powers as the Local Board districts which had only a population of 500. And this stalwart supporter of the Government went on to say— Such an anomaly was to his mind a great blunder on the part of the Government. He admitted that the question was a very difficult one, but they were; Radicals, and when they went in for measures of any description he believed in going to the bottom and re-arranging tilings wherever they thought it would be right to do so. It had been said that if the Government had attempted to carry out this principle in this case they would at once have brought a hornet's nest about their ears. He knew that, but it was not policy to bend to local feeling in this way. Instead of that the Government had taken out the Local Board districts just because they were there, and by that means they had lost an opportunity for sanitary reform such as might never occur again. The West Hiding County Council unanimously passed a resolution pointing out this: that their Petition had been entirely ignored. He did not believe in sinking one's Liberalism in order to save a little local trouble or friction. He admitted that the President of the Local Government Board had said that the difficulty would be got over by the provisions in the Bill enabling the County Councils to make new districts. But, in the meantime, what was to happen before the rectification of boundaries was carried out? Was it a reasonable course that they should adopt a system by which they forced upon the Bench a large number of Magistrates elected by the district without any such discrimination, and which might in time bring discredit upon the Magistracy of this country? In some districts it would be hard to find proper persons to put on the Bench. In order to ascertain the views of the Government on the matter, he moved the omission of the clause.

Amendment moved, To leave out the words ("The chairman of a District Council").—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)

٭LORD KNUTSFORD

said, his attention had also been called to this question, and he must press the Government, if they were unable at present to give satisfactory assurances on the question that was now raised, to postpone the clause until the Report stage. What Lord Cranbrook had said was perfectly true. The Lord President held out the hope that the boundaries would be reconsidered and the difficulty got over; but, in the meantime, this clause would have come into operation. He agreed with the stalwart Radical, to whom Lord Cranbrook had referred, that they should get to the bottom of the thing, but the Government had not got there.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I understood the noble Earl opposite to say that ho did not object to the appointment of chairmen of Local Boards and District Councils.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I said the Mayors of municipal boroughs.

٭THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the view of the Government was that the difficulties in respect of the small bodies mentioned by the Earl of Cranbrook would be met by the provisions in the Bill for correcting the boundaries of these districts. He quite agreed that the small districts described should be amalgamated and brought under the administration of a larger district. This mode of appointing Magistrates was not new. It was consistent with the arrangement laid down in the Local Government Bill, 1888, as regards County Councils. He could not give any hope that the Government would withdraw the provision.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he had gone through Clause 31, which dealt with areas and boundaries, and he could not find anything to get rid of the chairmen of these small Local Board districts. There was not a word about urban sanitary districts, and this clause did not touch that matter. He could not withdraw his Amendment unless the noble Marquess gave him an undertaking that the chairmen of these small Local Board districts should not obtain the advantages conferred by this clause.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said, the Incorporated Law Society were extremely anxious that a solicitor who might be elected chairman of a District Council should be allowed to act as a Justice of the Peace for the county in which the district was situated, subject to the condition that such solicitor should not either directly or indirectly by himself or by his partners practise before any Court in which he acted as a Justice. He had an Amendment to that effect on the Paper; but if the clause were now struck out on the Motion of his noble Friend, he would have no opportunity of moving that Amendment.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Earl SPENCER)

reminded noble Lords that there was a clause in the Local Government Act of 1888 giving power for small urban districts to be dissolved, and that in Municipalities the Mayor was an ex officio Magistrate by virtue of his office. There were some Municipalities which were quite as small as many of the suggested local districts.

LORD BELPER

There is no power in this Bill to dissolve small urban districts.

EARL SPENCER

No. I said in the Bill of 1888.

LORD BELPER

pointed out that these small Urban Authorities might each possess a Magistrate, while an adjoining district, embracing many villages, would only have one Magistrate, thereby comparing unfavourably with the small urban districts. He suggested that it might be worth while to consider whether some principle of fixing the population of the urban districts could not be introduced.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

called attention to the fact that by this clause not only was a class of ex officio Magistrates about to be created, but a class of ex officio Magistrates who in their character would be ad interim.

On Question that the clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 54.

Clause 23 (Constitution of District Councils in urban districts not being boroughs).

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved the insertion of the words "subject as hereinafter mentioned," before the provision as to there being no ex officio or nominated members of the Urban Sanitary Authority. This was, he said, in continuation of the resolution their Lordships had recently arrived at. The matters with which the Urban District Councils would have to deal in the future were matters of great importance administratively, such as the sanitary condition of their districts, the highways, assessment questions, and probably school attendance subjects, together with many others constantly arising, and with these the County Councils were very largely interested. Nothing would diminish the chances of friction so much between these two Elective Bodies as having some members of the County Council on the District Councils. It would be an immense administrative facility, and would prevent local official communications and many misunderstandings. As far as the principle went, it was already accepted by the House with regard to Boards of Guardians. Those members of the County Councils would supply the place of the four co-optative members introduced by the House of Commons into the Boards of Guardians, but not into the District Councils as such. He confessed he should like all the members, including Aldermen, or otherwise there might not be members for all the different District Councils, He ventured to propose this to the Committee as a very useful Amendment.

Amendment moved, In page 22, line 30, after the word ("shall") to insert the words ("subject as hereinafter mentioned").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

EARL STANHOPE

said, this question had been much discussed in the County of Kent, where he resided. There were a great number of Rural Sanitary Authorities, and hitherto the ex officio members had taken a very considerable part in the proceedings of these Boards. In a great many cases the ex officio acted as chairman, and the principle proposed by Lord Harrowby had already been accepted. This link between the County and District Councils was very important.

٭THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division on this clause, but the noble Earl had drawn this Amendment on a somewhat different basis to his former proposal. In the clause he added to the Bill a short time before, he provided that those County Councillors should serve who resided within the Union. There was no requirement in this Amendment that the County Councillors should reside within the district.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

expressed his willingness to alter the Amendment.

LORD BELPER

asked whether it would not be better, as the Committee had accepted an Amendment in different terms in the clause for electing Boards of Guardians, to have the same terms?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

inquired whether there were any Urban Sanitary Authorities within the Metropolitan area?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

I am afraid I cannot give any information on that point.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

There are none.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

I think it would save trouble if I took almost the same words as in the former Amendment.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

Would not the effect of that be that all the members of the County Council would be members of every district?

LORD BELPER

I understand the noble Earl takes the words of Lord De Ramsey's Amendment, but omits the Aldermen.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In line 31, to leave out the words ("Sanitary Authority") and insert the words ("District Council").

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved— After Sub-section (1) to insert as a new Subsection—"The members of a County Council qualified to be elected Councillors under this clause for such district shall be. by virtue of their office, additional members of the Council of the district within which they reside, provided they consent to serve; provided also that the County Councillor for a division included in more than one Union shall only be able to sit upon one such Board, and shall in writing to the chairman of such Board elect on which Board he will sit.

LORD BELPER

Will the noble Earl adopt the words of Lord De Ramsey's clause with the addition of the words "and Aldermen resident within the district." There is some difference between the words of the noble Earl and Lord De Ramsey.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

It needs some little manipulation to work in the Aldermen. Take the exact words of Lord De Ramsey, and work in the Aldermen on Report.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

I will take Lord De Ramsey's words, and just move at the end to add "provided they consent to serve."

Amendment, as altered, agreed to.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

said, he wished to move a similar Amendment to that which he moved on the Parish Council. Lord Selborne agreed that the words "the whole of" were unnecessary. The Leader of the House had told them that a clause referring to Hoards of Guardians with these words "the whole of" were in the Municipal Act, and therefore he wished to retain them. If it was clearly understood that merely having a residence in the parish was sufficient with out residing there the whole of the year, he did not wish to press the Amendment. Under the Local Government Act any Member of their Lordships' House was qualified to sit as County Councillor. He wished to know whether under this Bill the same qualifications would apply to District Councillors and Mayors?

Amendment moved, In page 22, line 34, to leave out the words ("the whole of").—(The Earl of Fevrsham.)

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the omission of the words "the whole of the 12 months" would, so far as he knew, make no difference at all to the clause. The words were taken from the Municipal Corporations Act, and it was thought better to borrow the exact language of that Act in a matter of this kind, and that Act was made by the Act of 1888 applicable to County Councillors.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Entirely?

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

Not entirely, but in its main provisions. I suppose my noble Friend means by residence having a house or residence to which a person could go to at any time if he chose. That is the meaning of the clause.

LORD HALSBURY

had a doubt about the matter. There was no doubt as to what was intended by the Municipal Statute, but he should like to know whether that particular phrase had ever come under judicial revision, and, if so, what interpretation had been given? He believed that all their Lordships meant the same thing, and that residence would mean exactly what the noble Marquess had suggested. In the Acts dealing with the franchise he thought it would be found that "residence during 12 mouths" had been interpreted just as the noble Marquess said. If the words were taken out a Court might suppose that something different from ordinary residence was meant, but it was following a bad precedent to put them in.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, the words exactly as they were here would be found in the Municipal Corporations Act of 1882, and he believed they were in the original Municipal Corporations Act. If their Lordships did not wish to change the law they had better not change the words in this Bill.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, he had seen a good deal of the administration of the old Poor Law when a settlement was obtained by hire and service and one year's residence. It never was suggested that a man should be every day and night of the year in the place, but that he should have a residence to return to.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he was rather alarmed by the statement of the noble Marquess the Colonial Secretary, a legal authority to whom he must bow. He (Lord Salisbury) had a house in France to which he could always return; and if the municipal definition of "residence" corresponded with the international, the result might be that, he had exposed himself to all sorts of penalties for not having registered himself as a resident in France.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, if he had ever made any claim whatever to be a legal luminary he entirely withdrew it.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

repeated that if their Lordships did not mean to alter what had been the law regarding residence, they had bettor not change the words as they had been in earlier Acts.

LORD HALSBURY

said, that in the last Registration Act "whole" occurred without "of," and the word "during" was also used.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In line 39, leave out ("the") and insert ("an"). Page 23, line 10, leave out ("to be").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The next Amendment is purely verbal. The effect is that it is not considered desirable that this change should be made as regards Local Boards and Improvement Commissioners unless a substantial majority of the members of the present Boards vote in favour of it. In the second Amendment the words are unnecessary.

Amendments moved, In page 23, to leave out from the word ("Provided") in line 17 to the end of line 22. and insert the words ("that a County Council may, on the request made by a resolution of an Urban District Council passed by two-thirds of the members voting on the resolution").

Line 25, leave out all after ("effect") to end of clause.—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 (Rural District Council).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 23, line 28, leave out the word ("rural") and after ("Council") insert the words ("of every rural district"). In line 30, after the word ("areas") insert the words ("for the election of Guardians").

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

I have a verbal Amendment which the Committee has already assented to. I will give the Chairman the same words as were adopted just now.

Amendment moved, In page 23, line 30, after the word ("district") to insert the words ("The members of the County Council qualified to be elected Councillors for such district shall be. by virtue of their office, additional members of such Council of the district in which they reside provided they consent to serve").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

Amendment agreed to.

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

The object of the next Amendment is to enable the members of the County Councils who go on the District Councils not to undertake the double duties of Boards of Guardians and the other duties of the District Councils, but to leave it open to them to undertake the duties more immediately connected with the County Council—such as those about assessment, sanitary matters, highways, education, &c., and not the Guardian part. That is what the ex officio Magistrates do very largely now. It would encourage many to undertake the duties who otherwise would not serve, as some might be unable to engage to undertake the heavy work of Poor Law administration in addition to their other responsibilities.

Amendment moved, In line 38, after the word ("area") to insert the words ("provided always, that no member of the County Council who has consented to serve on the District Council shall be deemed to be a Guardian of the Poor unless with his consent").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Is there any undesirable liabilities attaching to the office of Guardian?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I am rather of opinion that they cannot be compelled to do anything.

LORD HALSBURY

Oh, yes they can; they can be made Mayor of a borough.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The next Amendment is moved in consequence of a promise made when the Bill was before the other House to enable a person who lives in an urban portion of a Union to be elected to the District Council, although ho does not reside in the rural part of the Union. It applies where a Union is cut into two pieces.

Amendment moved, In page 24, line 2, after the word ("district") to insert the words ("and any person qualified to be a Guardian for a Union comprising the district shall be qualified to be a District Councillor for the district").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

Amendment agreed to. The following alterations were agreed to without discussion:— Page 24, line 7, leave out ("after") and insert ("as from"). Line 9, after ("provision") insert ("so far as not repealed"). Line 14, leave out ("sanitary"). After line 20, insert as a new sub-section:— (.) The said provisions of Section 9 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply to the District Council of a rural district to which they apply at the passing of this Act.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 (Powers of Council of rural district).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not quite understand the meaning of the words "Highway Authority" in this clause. Did it apply to Vestries that managed their own roads?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I think so. This applies to rural districts in this manner: Roads, except those managed by County Councils, are now managed by Highway Boards, or by separate parishes. The proposals in this Bill are to transfer in all cases the powers now exercised by the separate parishes where there are no Highway Boards to the new district. The County Councils may postpone for three years, or longer if the Local Government Board order, the operation of the Bill with regard to putting an end to parochial management, and constituting new Highway Authorities.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he did not see any provision for the financial settlement that must take place between the two bodies. There must be some provision for the liabilities and credits of the Vestry to pass over.

٭LORD THRING

said, the Vestries had nothing to do with highways. It was a surveyor.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The surveyor is the nominee of the Vestry, and you must provide for his credits and liabilities to pass over. The powers may pass without the actual financial settlement.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, it would be done by postponing the operation of the Act three years, or until there should be no accounts.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That is very like the common proposal of settling debts by postponing them. Perhaps the noble Earl will make a note of that, and see if there is any provision.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I will see to that. Of course, there must be provision somewhere.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Line 6, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway"). Line 7, leave out ("road") and insert ("highway").

LORD BELPER

, in moving a new sub-section, said, it was for the purpose of making a clause in the Local Government Act of 1888 somewhat clearer and to enable the County Council, when they agreed with the District Authority and gave contributions towards the ordinary highways, to be able to make agreements as to the work being thoroughly done. In his own county in dealing with main roads they made very stringent agreements with the District Authorities in. regard to the materials to be used and the way the road should be managed. It was found a very satisfactory thing in securing a high standard of roads, and the Urban Authorities knew what was expected of them. He wanted to make it clear that if the County Council gave a contribution to the road they could make an agreement that the road should be managed in a specific way.

Amendment moved, In page 25, line 8, at end, insert new subsection—("Where a Highway Authority receives any contribution towards the cost of any highway under Section 11, Sub-section 10, of the Local Government Act, 1888, such contribution may be made, subject to any such conditions for the proper maintenance and repair of such highways, as may be agreed on between the County Council and the Highway Authority: and such contribution may amount to the whole or any part of the expense incurred in the maintenance and repair of such highways").—(The Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

doubted whether it was necessary to insert the proposed sub-section. He quite understood and agreed with the object the noble Lord had in view. The Committee was perfectly well aware of what the powers were under the Act of 1888. The noble Lord seemed to want an extended power, and especially power to impose conditions. He was told such a condition was now constantly imposed. On that point, unless some question had arisen on the right to impose such condition, he did not see the necessity for the clause. The latter part of the clause was important. The noble Lord proposed— Such contribution may be made, subject to any such conditions for the proper maintenance and repair of such highways, as may be agreed on between the County Council and the Highway Authority; and such contribution may amount to the whole or any part of the expense incurred in the maintenance and repair of such highways. He was not going to insist on verbal inconsistency, but "contribution" hardly meant paying the whole. The clause seemed to imply that part of the expense was to be paid. Then came the question of the propriety of giving the County Council the power to pay the whole of the expense. The County Council had the power to declare any road to he a main road, and he was suggesting this consideration—Was it not more natural that where a County Council was prepared to pay the whole of the expense it should declare the road to he a main road, whereupon the whole expense should fall on the county? It would, to his mind, be inconvenient that the road should be managed by the Highway Board, the County Council paying the whole of the expense. He would suggest that the County Council should contract with the Highway Board to manage the roads which it (the County Council) had in its charge. He believed that they did contract in this way at present: but he doubted whether it was a desirable provision that the County Council should pay the whole of the expense of the Highway Board having the management of that road. And this led him to make a remark—to make it personally and without saying that he was prepared to bring forward a proposal on the subject—namely, that it had always seemed to him a question whether the whole of the roads should not be managed by the County Council. To refer to a particular case, his own county had been divided into districts, with a surveyor in each district; therefore, a preliminary step had been taken towards placing the whole of the roads under county management. Though he was not prepared to express an opinion upon the expediency of adopting such a course, he thought it was one worthy of consideration. Had the noble Lord contemplated such a state of things in his clause?

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, that their Lordships would have seen that he had an Amendment on the Paper very much to the same effect as that before their Lordships. He was anxious that something should be done in this direction, as from his experience there was a, growing feeling in many quarters amongst the various classes of the community that it would be of enormous advantage to get all the roads in the hands of the County Councils. He did not, however, think the time was ripe for such a course. He should like to see facilities given for testing the matter in various districts of the country, so that they might obtain evidence as to the wisdom of the experiment. He did not know whether the noble Earl opposite (Lord Kimberley) had looked at his Amendment. There was probably some advantage in it over the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Belper), being more general. His Amendment said— The Council of any county may agree with any District Council to take over the charge of all or any of the roads in their district upon such terms as they may agree upon, subject to the approval of the Local Government Board. He wished to leave it open to the two parties to make what terms they thought right.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said, this was a matter he had been obliged to pay very great attention to. He himself should entirely object to hand over the roads to the County Councils, thinking, as he did, that it would entail a large amount of jealousy. Moreover, the surveyor of a County Council in a large county like Lancashire could not possibly undertake the work, which was far better done by local surveyors. As to main roads, he (Viscount Cross) unfortunately lived in the Northern Division of the County of Lancaster, and in those "hundreds north of the sands," as they were called locally, there were only two or three miles of main loads. The County Council had taken the matter into consideration, and, he was thankful to say, were mending some of the highways, and were going to take over many more. He thought the noble Lord who had put the Amendment on the Paper was quite right, and that it did not necessarily follow that because the County Council would not make a road a main road that, therefore, it should not in certain circumstances pay the whole of the expense. There might be all kinds of reasons why it should at a certain time take charge of the road and pay the expense one particular year without being saddled with it as a main road in perpetuity. He thought the Amendment of the noble Lord a most valuable one, and he should certainly support it.

LORD BELPER

said, he hoped that, after the observations of the noble Earl opposite (Lord Harrowby), their Lordships would see that there was some value in the Amendment. With regard to the point taken as to whether an agreement was necessary, he had not put the words "as may be agreed on" into the Amendment without proper consideration. The fact was, there was considerable doubt as to whether, if they made an agreement with a Local Authority, and for some reason or other at the end of the year that Local Authority was not satisfied and did not fulfil their part of the agreement, they would be able to enforce it unless under an Act of Parliament. That opinion had been given; but, at all events, he could see no harm in specifically pointing out in a clause of this sort that they might make an agreement, because it would show to all parties concerned what the intention of the clause was. It would show that it was not contrary to the policy of Parliament. Then, with regard to the suggestion that the last part of the clause was not necessary, as he had said, he had put the words in for the purpose of clearing up the doubt as to the meaning of the expression "towards."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would agree to the clause, reserving to himself the right, after careful consideration, to make any change in the actual wording of it that he might consider necessary.

٭LORD DE RAMSEY

said, that perhaps the noble Earl would also consider whether the question of giving authority for dismaining main roads could not be dealt with in the Amendment by way of bringing about a more cordial understanding between the two authorities.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said that, speaking offhand, he thought that to enact anything with regard to the powers of the County Councils would be rather beyond the scope of the Bill. He could not agree to the noble Lord's suggestion.

LORD BELPER

said, he had omitted to state that under his clause the districts rated would be those of the whole Council. Under the noble Earl's Amendment the particular district of the District Council would be rated, though the County Council would manage the roads. He did not see why the two Amendments could not be usefully amalgamated.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said that, as to his Amendment, he should be guided by the opinion of the Lord President. If he thought it would be useful to work it in, well and good; but it seemed to him (the Earl of Harrowby) surplusage.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he thought it would be surplusage.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 25, line 16, after the word ("Act") to insert the words ("and such provisions of any of those Acts relating to urban districts shall apply to rural districts").

LORD HERRIES

said, he wished to move, in line 16, to leave out the words "or any other Act." His object was to obtain information as to what was intended by the sub-section. It seemed to him that very likely grave duties and responsibilities would be put on the District Councils. He did not wish to say anything against the Local Government Board, which would have a very important duty imposed on it, and imposed on it apparently without any application from the District Council or the County Council. He did not know what Her Majesty's Government would say to the suggestion, but he would propose that it should be on the recommendation of the County Council that the powers of the subsection should be applied for. What ho objected to was that the Rural District Councils should, almost at the will of the Local Government Board, be made Urban Sanitary Authorities. Their Lordships were aware what great powers Urban Sanitary Authorities possessed. Well, under the clause those powers could be given to the District Councils at the will of the Local Government Board—powers of lighting the district, of bringing water into it, or of establishing hospitals for infectious discases. It seemed to him that the words "or any other Act" would embrace every duty belonging to an Urban Sanitary Authority which could possibly be imagined. He would ask the Government what powers were contemplated by these words? Their Lordships knew how much higher the rates were in the urban sanitary districts than they were in the rural districts. He himself know an instance in a rural district where a gas rate was paid by a farm situated two miles from the nearest gas lamp, and under the clause as it stood this sort of thing would he very much extended. Would the Government tell him what powers it was intended to confer on the District Councils under the clause?

Amendment moved, In page 25, line 16, to leave out the words ("or any other Act ").—(The Lord Herries.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Local Government Board had power now by special Order to confer the powers of an Urban Authority an any particular Rural Authority. The change made by this clause would merely he to enable the Local Government Board, if they found there was no cause for it, to make a General Order applicable to all Rural Authorities. The words "or any other Act" were inserted from abundance of caution—so as to he certain that any other Act giving powers to Urban Sanitary Authorities was included in the clause: but he believed that the Public Health Acts were the only Acts giving these powers. He differed from the noble Lord as to the policy of the clause, for he thought there was nothing more desirable than that the Local Government Hoard should have power to confer certain urban powers on the Rural Sanitary Authorities. In was inconvenient to have a large number of small urban districts with powers of a very anomalous kind, and he conceived it desirable that there should he as few of those districts as possible. In the case of places of considerable size it was desirable that they should have government of their own, but in the case of small places it was desirable that they should be governed by the general authority of the district. If by this clause they were enabled to give the Rural Sanitary Authorities such powers as might be desirable according' to the circumstances of the case, they would avoid the creation of these unnecessary small urban districts. They could not lay down any general principle on which to proceed, because it must be remembered that there were a large number of so-called rural districts which contained a number of small towns in them and a arger number of large villages. The noble Lord behind him (Lord Thring) had often pointed out that there were villages of 1,500 and 2,000 inhabitants in which urban powers to a certain extent were absolutely unnecessary. If they gave to the Local Government Board the discretion to extend these urban powers where necessary, it would be of great advantage to places where such powers were required, and avoid the creation of small districts having urban powers and separate bodies governing them, and interfering with the general administration of the country.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

said, the words of the clause were enormously wide as they stood. Could they not modify them by saying, for instance, "or other Act that can be enforced in urban districts"?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the words of the sub-section were— Such powers, duties, and liabilities of Urban Sanitary Authorities under the Public Health Acts or any other Act. This did not mean under any Act whatever, but any Act giving Urban Sanitary Authorities powers.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the Government put in these words because they did not know what other Acts there might be. There might be other Acts that would apply conferring powers which they knew not. Was it not rather rash to import into the clause powers of which they knew nothing?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the powers must be powers given to Urban Sanitary Authorities.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Rut they might be inappropriate.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Public Health Acts were thought rather wide; but it was held that it would be safe to use the words, its they would cover Acts giving powers to Urban Authorities. In like manner the words "or any other Act," which had reference to Acts conferring similar powers, were considered safe.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

But very abnormal.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 25, line 21, after the word ("made,") to insert the words ("by the Local Government Board").

On Question? that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that on this question he was able to answer the question put by the noble Marquess at the commencement of the discussion of the clause—namely, as to what provision was made for taking over the liabilities and expenses of the parish. The provision was to be found in Clause 61, which provided that— Where any powers and duties are transferred by this Act from one authority to another authority, a variety of things would follow. The clause was intended to be an adjustment between the different authorities.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 (Duties of District Council as to rights of way and roadside wastes).

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 25, line 30, leave out ("up"). Line 36, leave out the first ("The") and insert ("A"). Line 37, leave out the second ("the") and insert ("any").

٭LORD THRING

said, he begged to move— In page 25, line 40, after the word "district" to insert the words "and may with the like consent exercise in relation to any common within their district all such powers as may, under Section 8 of the Commons Act, 1876, be exercised by an Urban Sanitary Authority in relation to any common referred to in that section; and notice of any application to the Board of Agriculture in relation to any common within their district shall be served upon the District Council. The clause gave distinct power to aid persons in maintaining common rights. This was very desirable, but the wording of the section was not quite explicit enough. One of the objects of the Amendment was to secure the proper regulation and management of commons, because if they were not properly regulated, looking at the large number of tramps and gipsies in the country, they would soon become nuisances. Then, it was very often expedient that a Local Authority should have power to acquire a commoner's tenement, and that not infrequently became the means of preventing the destruction of a whole common. The Amendment he moved was to give the District Council the powers under Section 8 of the Commons Act, 1876. That Act applied to towns containing 5,000 inhabitants; therefore, all he asked was that they should give to District Boards in respect of commons the same rights that every town of 5,000 inhabitants had with respect to commons within six miles.

Amendment moved, In page 25, line 10, after the word ("district"), to insert the words ("and may with the like consent exercise in relation to any common within their district all such powers as may, under Section 8 of the Commons Act, 1876, be exercised by an Urban Sanitary Authority in relation to any common referred to in that section; and notice of any application to the Board of Agriculture in relation to any common within their district shall be served upon the District Council").—(the Lord Thring.)

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

thought the noble Lord's object would be met by the words "any other Act."

LORD TURING

said, he did not think so. At any rate, he should prefer to have the words put in specifically.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that in line 34 of page 25 they had the words— And to prevent any encroachment on any roadside waste within their district"; but further down in the clause they had the words "unlawful encroachment." He was afraid that when actions were brought under this section the Court would ask, "What is the difference between 'an encroachment' and 'an unlawful encroachment'"? He would suggest that, after the word "district" he had just read, the words "which is not private property" should be added.

LORD THRING

said, that in the matter of roadside wastes the surface belonged to the public but the soil to the landowner.

THE MARCHESS OF SALISBURY

asked how a public footpath running through an open field would be dealt with?

٭LORD THRING

said, that in the event of disagreement as to a public road the question would be settled by a jury.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Has roadside waste a technical meaning which includes private property?

٭LORD TURING

replied that roadside wastes did not include private property as respects the surface.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, ho did not think there could be any objection to inserting the words he proposed. "Encroachment" was not a very definite word, and these things might make lawsuits if they did not select their words very carefully.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, the point of the noble Marquess would be met by putting, in line 34, the word "unlawful," which was contained lower down.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That would do equally well.

Amendment moved, In page 25, line 34, before the word ("encroachment") to insert the word ("unlawful")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Amendment (The Lord Thring) agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 26, line 1, leave out the word ("The") and insert ("A"). Line 21, leave out the words ("Provided that").

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the clause gave power to interfere when an encroachment had taken place. Should not the power to interfere be while the encroachment was taking place?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that land might have been enclosed, in which case the encroachment could not be said to be taking place, but to have taken place.

On the Motion of the Lord BELPER, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In page 26, lines 21 and 22, leave out the words ("roadside wastes under the management and control of a Comity Council, or"). Line 23, leave out the word ("thereto") and insert the words ("to roadside wastes").

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 (Transfer of certain powers of Justices to District Council).

٭THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he rose to move to leave out this clause. He wanted to know why the powers hitherto in the hands of Magistrates should be taken from them and given to a new tribunal to be composed partly of women? Ho was aware that this clause was in Mr. Ritchie's Bill of 1888; but had these clauses of Mr. Ritchie's Bill come before their Lordships he should have taken the same objection. It seemed to him that noble Lords opposite should have taken warning from Mr. Ritchie's proposal, and should not have fallen into the error of taking these functions out of the hands of the Magistrates and handing them over to a body composed partly of ladies. What knowledge could ladies have of pawnbrokers' certificates? what could they know about game licences? It was an insult to the other sex to suppose that they were so familiar with the details of the business of pawnbrokers and dealers in game as to think it desirable to give them the opportunity of administering the law relating to those trades. What could ladies know about the abolition of fairs? Some ladies might attend fairs, no doubt; but was there anything special in their knowledge of them which should render them better able to administer the law than the Magistrates? It was possible that having decided on forming District Councils they found there was not enough work for them to do, and that: both Mr. Ritchie and Her Majesty's Government looked about for some padding to put info the Bill. Then, it was proposed to hand over to those ladies the administration of the Petroleum Acts and the duties relating to infant life protection. Why these two functions should have been joined together he failed to understand.

Moved, to leave out the clause.—(The, Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that he found himself in a difficult position in having to defend Mr. Ritchie against the strictures of the noble Duke opposite. He had thought that, having been introduced by so high an authority on the Conservative side as Mr. Ritchie, the clause would have met with the unanimous support of the Party opposite. He was disappointed in that, but he would not shield himself behind Mr. Ritchie's authority. No doubt in the Bill they had adopted a comparatively new principle. They had introduced women into the District Councils to take part in their deliberations; and whether that was a. wise step or not, he could not understand the objection of the noble Duke to giving to women the powers he had referred to when no objection was taken to handing over to them the other powers contained in the Bill, such as the management of roads. The District Boards upon which women would have seats would be entrusted with the execution of drainage works, and so forth, he had never understood that drainage was a subject that women had made a special study of—though they knew that at the present time there were very few things that women did not meddle with. But there was infant life protection, and that surely was a subject perfectly germane to the feminine intellect. Women, also, were fitted to look after the provision of game for household purposes, and as to pawnbrokers' certificates, such things as female applicants to pawnbrokers had been heard of, and he did not know that there would not be quite as much work for the female mind as for the male mind in connection with this subject. There was certainly an expression in connection with the pawnbroker which seemed to refer to the male sex—namely, going to "my uncle." It had never been suggested that the phrase going to "my aunt" should be used, but according to Parliamentary language the word "uncle" would include "aunt." As to fairs, they were things which the female mind was specially fitted to deal with. There were merry-go-rounds and amusements which attracted children at fairs, and women would necessarily have an opinion about such matters. The principle of the clause was to transfer from the Magistrates every kind of authority that was not of a judicial character, and that purely administrative functions should be discharged by the civil authority. He thought that was a principle that might fairly be adopted.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he had omitted to draw attention to the 2nd sub-section, which said— As from the appointed day, the powers, duties, and liabilities of Quarter Sessions in relation to the licensing of knackers' yards within a county district shall be transferred to the District Council of the district.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the clause could not be said to be simply a transfer of administrative functions only, inasmuch as there were people dealt with in the clause who very frequently came under the Criminal Law, or, at all events, in respect of whom a criminal question was frequently raised. He thought the duties referred to in the clause were part of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates.

On Question, that the clause stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided:—Contents 52; Not-Contents 80.

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he had this notice on the Paper— Insert the following new clause:—"As from the appointed day there shall be transferred to the Council of each rural district and of each urban district, not being a borough, the powers and duties of the School Attendance Committee (if any) acting for the whole or part of the district. And each such Council shall, within the district or such part thereof, but subject to the provisions of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1876,' respecting School Boards, be the Local Authority for the purposes of that Act: and may act either by a Committee of their own members, or, if they think fit, in respect of any rural parish, by delegation to the Parish Council of that parish, and in either case may authorise such Committee or Council to institute any proceedings, or do any act which the Council might have instituted or done. The expenses incurred by a Rural District Council under this enactment shall be defrayed out of a fund to be raised out of the poor rate of the parishes in which the Council act for the purposes of this enactment according to the rateable value of each parish. But where a Parish Council are authorised to act for a parish, the expenses of the Parish Council, and of any officer appointed to enforce attendance or institute proceedings in or for such parish shall be a separate charge on the rates of the parish. It would be remembered that when he passed through the House of Commons, on behalf of Lord Beaconsfield's Government, the Education Act of 1876, he looked about in all directions to find Local Authorities to whom he could entrust the powers of compelling the attendance of children at school. In rural districts, where there were no School Boards, they found there was no Local Authority except the Boards of Guardians to whom they could entrust the important duty of supervising school attendance. They were very unwilling to connect education in any way with Poor Law administration, but then there was no alternative; and this he had fully explained at the time in the House of Commons. This duty had been fulfilled generally in a satisfactory way, having brought about an enormous increase in school attendance, for it should never be forgotten that in the four years or so affected solely by the Act of 1876, and its Codes which they passed, a much greater increase of school attendance had been secured than by any subsequent legislation or Codes; so the choice of the Guardians had been fully justified. But it was undesirable that the subject of education should be associated any longer than necessary with the subject of pauperism; and now that there was an opportunity of transferring the powers created by the Act of 1876 to other bodies, they ought, ho held, to take advantage of it. He believed the change would be rightly acceptable to the working classes concerned. The duties which fell to the lot of Hoards of Guardians had reference to the enforcement of school attendance, the factory scholars, and the Conscience Clause, and he could not imagine that there could be objection to transfer these powers to the new District Councils. He would not move the whole of the clause he had put on the Notice Paper, but would stop at the words "purposes of that Act" in the 8th line.

Amendment moved, Insert the following Now Clause:—("As from the appointed day there shall be transferred to the Council of each rural district and of each urban district, not being a borough, the powers and duties of the School Attendance Committee (if any) acting for the whole or part of the district. And each such Council shall, within the district or such part thereof, but subject to the provisions of 'The Elementary Education Act. 1876,' respecting School Hoards, be the Local Authority for the purposes of that Act").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he hoped the propositi would not be pressed at the present time. The matter was one which required careful consideration. If such a change us the noble Earl advocated was found to be really desirable, a Bill dealing with the point might be introduced hereafter. A similar Amendment had been moved in the House of Commons, and Mr. Acland had asked for it to be withdrawn, saying that he would bring in a Bill to deal with the matter at some future time.

٭THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he was unwilling to give up the Amendment. School Attendance Committees were a contrivance of his own; he could at the time find no authorities available but the Guardians; he always disliked the association of education with pauperism and workhouse officers, and he therefore was anxious, now the opportunity offered, to take no time in removing these duties from Boards of Guardians. It was very easy to talk about bringing in a Bill, but it was not so easy to pass one; and whoever opened up again the education subject by a Bill in Parliament would, in the present temper of men's minds, have a heavy business. Every educational reformer he had had to do with was anxious that a better body for the discharge of these duties than the Boards of Guardians should be formed. He saw no reason why this change should not be effected now.

٭THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that the proposed clause would really leave things its they were, for under this measure the District Council would be the Board of Guardians. He thought the existing School Attendance Committees had done their work very successfully.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, his feeling was this: no doubt the measure which had been passed at the instance of the noble Earl had been very useful. If there were any great advantage to be gained by the proposed transference, the opportunity which now presented itself for effecting it ought not to be lost. But, as far as he knew, there was no such advantage to be gained; therefore he thought it would be much more convenient to leave the matter where it was, there being really no complaint of the present system except that which was expressed in this way, "Some people think that something better might be done." There would be no advantage in working a change which in a year or two it might be found ought to be superseded by something else. He did not think the matter had been sufficiently considered. The framework of our educational system was of a very delicate and intricate character, and being himself somewhat responsible for it he should not like to see this change made without careful examination and consideration.

On Question? their Lordships divided: — Contents 89; Not-Contents 47.

New Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (expenses of Urban District Council), agreed to.

Clause 29 (Expenses of Rural District Council).

٭THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, he desired to move to leave out Subsection (b), which was as follows:— When the Local Government Hoard determine any expenses under this Act to be special expenses and a separate charge on any contributory place, and such expenses would if not separately chargeable on a contributory place be raised as general expenses, they may further direct that such special expenses shall be raised in like manner as general expenses, and not by such separate rate for special expenses, as is mentioned in Section 230 of the Public Health Act, 1875. He had two reasons for moving the omission of the sub-section. In the first place, ho found it extremely difficult to understand what it meant—what were "special expenses" which the Local Government Board might make a separate charge, but which, if not separately chargeable, would be raised as general expenses. It was then said that such special expenses might be made general expenses again. He should have thought it better to leave them general expenses, as they were before.

Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection (b).—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was not sure he understood what the noble Earl had said. At present the Local Government Board had power to determine certain expenses to be special. When that was done the results followed which applied to special expenses; that was to say, there was a different distribution of the rate. But there were cases where it was very desirable that there should be a power to make a charge on a particular part of a parish, though at the same time there was no reason why they should be, technically, special expenses. It would be admitted by everyone that in large parishes there were cases where it was not fair that the cost of certain things to he done in one part of a parish should be charged on the whole area. The clause, therefore, proposed to give the Local Government Board power to charge expenditure of this kind on a, portion of the parish without making it "special expenses" in the technical sense.

٭THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

asked if there was anything in the sub-section of the nature of a dispensing power which would enable the Local Government Board to cause those expenses which should be "special" to be "general" expenses—that was to say, to charge on agricultural land expenses which would otherwise be chargeable to house property?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said that, as he understood the matter, the clause would not enable the Local Government Board to make that which was a special expense not a special expense. It would give a further and additional power to the Board to make certain special Orders as to the payment of sums of money by particular parts of the parish. It was a new power given to the Local Government Board and not a modification of the old power. It was not a change in the power of the Board as to charging special expenses, but a new power given to them as to apportioning certain other expenses.

٭THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, then he understood if there was a dispensing power given in the clause it was not intended to be given?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would not guarantee that he might not make a mistake, but he understood that no dispensing power was given. He understood that the Board would not be able to make what were now special expenses not special expenses.

THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

Perhaps the noble Earl will look into the matter before the Report.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I will do so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

asked if an unlimited power to charge expenses on a parish or any part of it was not a large power to give the Local Government Board?

THE EARL or KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Marquess saw the necessity for power being lodged somewhere. In a large parish, say one with a village at each end of it, would it not be great injustice to charge on the whole district an expenditure which was incurred solely for the benefit of one of the villages? It was necessary that the power of apportioning the charge should be lodged somewhere, and he did not see where they could lodge it except in the Local Government Board.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, that the County Council would be a much better body to entrust with discretion in this matter.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that up to the present these duties had been entrusted to the Government Department. The allocation of special expenses was a power frequently exercised. The clause they were now discussing by no means conferred on the Local Government Board for the first time the power of allocating' special expenses. What the clause did was to give power to allot other expenses.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he supposed the idea that the allocation of taxation ought to be conducted by an Elected Body was a little old-fashioned. He did not accept the answer of the noble Earl that because a thing had hitherto been done on a small scale that, therefore, it ought now to be done on a large scale.

٭THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he would answer the noble Marquess by saying that the clause would make no alteration in the levying of what were called special expenses generally. Special expenses related to sanitary matters, and in regard to that question the clause would make no difference. A rate of that kind, which was now a special rate, must be a special rate under this clause: but as the law stood at present—as he was informed—a separate rate for a, particular part only of a parish must be a special rate. If it was a rate affecting the whole parish it would be a, general rate. The object of the clause was to enable the Local Government Hoard in these cases, and in these cases alone, in which it thought that what would be a general rate for the whole parish ought to be put on part of the parish, to put it on that part as a general rate and not as a special rate.

THE EARL OF WINGHILSEA

said, the noble Lord had rather limited the application of his (the Earl of Winchilsea's) question, because he had said that special expenses were those which referred to saintary matters.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

Mainly.

٭THE EARL OF WINGHILSEA

He has not forgotten that the adoptive Acts are included under the expenses that can be incurred?

٭THE MARQFESS OF RIPON

Those Acts prescribe their own rates. Those rates are not all on the same principle as that which is called a special rate. This clause has nothing to do with the rates under the adoptive Acts.

٭THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

hoped that some noble Lord opposite trained in intellectual gymnastics would make himself thoroughly master of this matter before the Report.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 30 (Special provisions as to London and county boroughs and other urban districts).

LORD LAMINGTON

said, he wished to move to insert after the word "Guardians" the words "and Urban Authorities." The object of the Amendment was to deal with the chaotic state of the London Vestries. They had had a discussion that evening on the Boards of Guardians. They were in some way or other under the supervision of the Local Government Board, whereas the condition of the Vestry government in Loudon was unpopular and uneconomical, and did not meet the requirements of the Metropolis. Various Governments had announced their intention, and had attempted to carry out it great act of decentralisation, and to imbue everyone with the laudable ambition of either taking part in local government or of feeling that they were in close contact with the administration of local affairs. The object of the present Bill was to give a, feeling of civil responsibility to everyone in the smallest rural area. Why should London be omitted from the scope of the Bill? It was more necessary than ever that something should be done in London since the establishment of the London County Council with such huge and extensive powers. There was already beginning to be a certain amount of friction between the London County Council and the Vestries, the result being that many of those most capable in matters of local concern did not care any longer to stand for the Vestries. There was nothing in the Bill, so far as he could see, to in any way remedy the evil. The proposals of the Government were mainly devoted to the removal of the qualification for Vestrymen, to enfranchise lodgers, and to make some alterations in the mode of election. There was nothing in these alterations which would give increased confidence in the Vestry government of London. His Amendment was to apply the provisions respecting Urban Sanitary Authorities to the County of London. The Amendment was preliminary to another Amendment which proposed to strike out the whole of the remainder of the sub-section and substituting the words— And the expression 'Urban Sanitary Authorities' shall include 'Sanitary Authorities' as denned by the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. By this very slight alteration of the Bill the Metropolis, by far the largest urban sanitary district in the Kingdom, would be put in possession of powers similar to those conferred upon Provincial Corporations under the Public Health Act, 1891, and the Sanitary Authorities would become District Councils similar to any other Urban Authority, with the result that they would thereby obtain the increased powers given to District Councils under Clause 7. His further Amendment would simplify the whole question of local government in London. His proposal was supported by the important Vestry of St. Pancras, the Parliamentary Committee of which body had unanimously given their adhesion to his Amendment. He had to-day presented a Petition from that body.

Amendment moved, In page 27, line 36, after the word ("Guardians") to insert the words ("and Urban Sanitary Authorities").—(The. Lord Lamington.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he assumed that the first Amendment was intended to lead to the Amendment to be proposed later for the re-organisation of London. The Bill had been attacked as being too large; but ready as the Government had been to undertake large changes in local administration, they certainly would shrink from the task the noble Lord wished to impose on them. It was true that some day or other there must be a re-organisation of Loudon, but he was certain the House did not look upon the present Bill as affording an opportunity for entering upon that re-organisation. The proposal of the noble Lord, in point of fact, should be the subject of a separate Bill.

٭LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, the words the noble Lord (Lord Lamington) moved to omit, he (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) also had a notice down to omit, but for a different purpose, for he did not propose to insert anything in their place. The object ho had in view he had pointed out in the course of a previous discussion this evening. Sufficient notice had not been given to the Vestries of the intention of the Government. They had, in fact, been taken by surprise. Their Lordships, as a matter of fact, were coming to the first words in the Bill, which applied the measure to the London Vestries, and this was the part of the Bill which was put in at a late stage in the passage of the measure through the House of Commons. He had presented a Petition from his own Vestry against this part of the Bill. Other Vestries, including Kensington and Marylebone, were of opinion that the Bill would lead not to simplification, but to a great deal of confusion. In his opinion, the whole question of the subordinate government of the Metropolis was important enough to be dealt with separately. The Bill of the Government would render the task of reforming the government of London in the future more difficult than it need be.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the noble Lord had stated a plain issue, which could hardly be decided on a side point such as that before the Committee. A different answer would have to be given to the noble Lord to that which would be offered on the Amendment.

LORD LAMINGTON

said, he would withdraw his Amendment, in order to allow the noble Lord (Lord Balfour of Burleigh) to make his proposal.

Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

LOUD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

said, he would move to omit the words applying the provisions of the section "to the Administrative County of London."

Amendment moved, In page 27, line 36, to leave out the words ("Administrative County of London and").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment raised the whole question of whether or not this Bill should deal with the London Vestries. He would submit that there was no reason whatever why they should refrain from reforming them. The change was not a very large one, but he thought it was a very desirable one. In order to show what the law was he would explain, firstly, what the state of the law of Vestries was—which, he thought, probably, many of their Lordships did not know—and, secondly, what the Bill proposed to do. Under the existing law the electors were the ratepayers of the parish or district, but the ratepayer was not entitled to vote unless he had been rated in the parish to the relief of the poor for one year next before the election, and had paid all parochial rates, taxes, and assessments, except those due within the preceding six months. A person to be qualified as a Vestryman must be the occupier of property within the parish, and be rated or assessed within the parish to the poor rate upon a rateable value of not less than £40. When there was to be an election the Churchwardens must publish a notice of the day and place for the election, and then when a parish was divided into wards there were further provisions as to what the Churchwardens were to do. When the election took place a, show of hands was taken; but if a poll was demanded by live ratepayers, then there was a ballot. That was the existing law. Now, the Vestries in London were authorities quite apart from Boards of Guardians, who managed the highways and sanitary business, the lighting of the streets, and so forth. The provisions of the Bill would differ from the present arrangement of government by London Vestries in various respects. Instead of the ratepayers alone having the vote there would be a Register the same as in a rural parish, in which all persons would be entered who had a Parliamentary or local government qualification. Owners, lodgers, and persons qualified under the service franchise would be able to vote. Women and Peers who could vote at local government elections would be included—Beers could not vote at present for the London Vestries—and also a woman was not to be disqualified by marriage from being on the Register. Then it Was proposed that a person to be qualified as a Vestryman must be a parochial elector of the parish, or have resided therein during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election. The elections would take place under Rules framed by the Local Government Board. Then the provisions of the Ballot Act and the Municipal Elections (Illegal Practices) Act would be applicable, which they were not at present. To make his statement complete, he would point out that there were what were called District Boards in London. Under the Metropolitan Local Government Act, of which many years ago he had charge in their Lordships' House, the arrangement was this: Where (here were parishes too small to have a separate authority, they were grouped together to elect members of a. Board, but in the larger parishes, such as St. George's, Hanover Square, Chelsea, Marylebone, and St. Pancras, there was a Vestry for the whole parish. There was no question here of the abolition of plural voting, for there was no plural voting for the Vestry. It was voted for by all the ratepayers. He could not for the life of him sec why in London persons who would be entitled to vote for Sanitary District Boards if they lived in the country should be excluded from voting in London for Vestries. The change made which was most important had reference to the £40 qualification for Vestrymen. What reason could there be for imposing such a high qualification in these democratic days, when no such qualification was required in the case of a Member of Parliament or of a. Board of Guardians? The requirement was absurdly anomalous at the present day. It was absurd to say that this was a great revolution in London, and the proposals of the Government could not be regarded in that light. He, therefore, hoped that their Lordships would not interfere with the clause.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

said, that the qualification varied in London. In some cases it was £20 and £25.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it was ordinarily £40.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, this clause was not in the Bill as originally drawn, but when the House of Commons was exhausted and thin the Government were seized with a sudden inspiration that they desired to reform (he Vestry system of London. But they gave no opportunity to any of the Vestries themselves, to any of the Public Bodies, or to the public opinion of London to examine, in the first place, into the necessity for making a change; and, secondly, into the necessity for making the particular change proposed. The noble Earl had been kind enough to give their Lordships his interpretation and view of what was intended to be done; but the drafting of this clause was so wonderful that he defied any human being who had not been provided with some special code of interpretation to discover what it meant. The noble Earl apparently possessed some cypher by which he understood what the draftsman meant. Here was a sentence in reference to Urban District Councils— The provisions of this Part of this Act respecting Guardians shall apply to the Administrative County of London and to every county borough in like manner as to an urban district. and the provisions of this Act, with respect to the qualification of the electors of Urban District Councillors, and of the persons to be elected, and with respect to the mode of conducting the election, shall apply as if members of the Local Board of Woolwich and the Vestries elected under the Metropolis Management Acts, 1855 to 1890, or any Act amending those Acts, and the auditors elected under those Acts, and so far as respects the qualification of persons to be elected, as if members of the District Boards under the said Acts were Urban District Councillors, and no person shall. ex officio, be chairman of any of the said Vestries. Was it possible that anyone brought up at an ordinary national school could have framed that sentence? He had no particular attachment to the Vestries, but the change proposed was an enormous one—from the people who paid rates to the enormous majority who did not pay rates, but who would vote under the Compounding Acts. He did not say that the policy of the Government, was wrong, but he did say that it ought to be well considered and intelligible, for at the present moment it was neither the one nor the other.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

, speaking as a Vestryman of St. James's, said, he considered that the London Vestries should be dealt with in a general, comprehensive, and intelligible measure. After the clause read by the noble Marquess, he certainly should oppose such an unintelligible scheme.

On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 26; Not-Contents 107.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, Sub-section (2) applied to the Vestry of Paddington, which by a Local Act was obliged to meet in the middle of the day. The sub-section would enable it to meet at any time.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that consequential on an Amendment passed earlier in the evening, Sub-section (3) (relating to the powers, duties, and liabilities of Justices) must be omitted. It was a source of great gratification to him that reflection since last night had so completely restored the confidence of the noble Marquess in the Justices that he was unwilling that any powers already existing should be taken away and transferred to other bodies.

THE MARCHESS OF SALISBURY

said, he was about to say that he supposed the clause expressed the view of the noble Lord as to the present confidence that could be reposed in the Justices, since he had thought it necessary to take away even those powers from them.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he had taken away those powers from the Justices in order that he might leave them undisturbed in the discharge of the much higher functions connected with the administration of justice.

Sub-section (3) struck out.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, they had now come to another subject, and it would perhaps be convenient to adjourn. They would resume the Committee on Thursday, and if they should finish on that day—which he thought was probable—if agreeable to their Lordships the Report would be taken on Monday.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Hear, hear!

House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Thursday next.

House adjourned at half past Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.