Lords Sitting of 8 February 1894

TOOK THE OATH.
The Viscount Templetown.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.—(No. 294.)

  COMMITTEE. [FIFTH NIGHT.]
  House again in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 30 (Special provisions as to London and county boroughs and other urban districts).
  Consequential and verbal Amendments.
  EARL CADOGANpointed out that one of the Amendments of the Leader of the House appeared to be merely for breaking up the clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, he did not propose, unless the Committee desired it, to put such Amendments formally unless the words or their position were altered. Breaking up clauses did not seem to him to he really an Amendment, but rather a question of arrangement in the printing.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would remember that he had suggested an Amendment on Clause 20, which the noble Earl had promised to consider if necessary, and put in in Clause 30. He would not make over again the speech he made on the former occasion.
  Amendment moved,
  After line 15, add—("The provisions of this section shall not apply to any charity the trusts of which are administered by trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, or by their legally-appointed successors for the time being").—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AM> SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, the Act referred to in the Amendment was repealed by the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882. The trustees appointed under Section 71 of
  154
  the Act of 1835 seemed to be appointed for a temporary purpose only. According to his view, this was now more a question for the Charity Commissioners than for the Local Government Board.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, on the previous occasion he was acting in the interest of people in Bristol interested in the matter, who were afraid their charities would come under this sub-section. He had since had communications from Coventry and Gloucester expressing the same apprehension. The noble Lord the other night apparently desired to bring these charities within the scheme of the Bill. He desired to know whether the Government were absolutely certain that the framework of the Bill, taking the sections together, did not in fact bring the charities under it? The introduction of parochial representatives on those bodies would cause great confusion, and render their administration absolutely impossible.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Amendment appeared to be wholly unnecessary. He was informed the trustees were only appointed for a temporary purpose. The trustees appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Act of 1835 would not be affected. It was a question for the Charity Commissioners.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHunderstood that the trustees were appointed by the Charity Commissioners under the Act of 1852.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYhad no information about that.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked what course he was to take to obtain information as to the intentions of the Government?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the intentions of the Government were to oppose this proviso. He was informed that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who was specially interested in Bristol, was quite satisfied that that town should be put into the Bill. The intention of the Government was not to interfere with the Bristol Charities.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHassured the noble Lord that, according to a letter received from Bristol that morning, the people there were far from being satisfied. He asked whether, assuming it not to be the intention of the Government to apply the Act

  155
  to these charities, it would not be wiser to put in the proviso, or something like it, as the draftsman might think right, and make it clear once for all?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas afraid his answer had not quite satisfied the noble Lord, but he would make a special note of the matter for the Report stage. He had stated the general view of the Government on the point, but could not give a further answer at present.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, nothing could be more satisfactory than the answer the noble Lord had now given. He would withdraw his Amendment, and, if necessary, communicate with the Charity Commissioners or the Local Government Board.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwould prefer the question to be put again, in order that there should be no mistake.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Verbal and consequential Amendments.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked which of the Amendments was before the Committee? for nobody on that side of the House could hear a single word of what was going on.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, they were purely verbal matters.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, noble Lords could not hear what the words in question wore.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Statute referred to the complete County of London, and the question was whether the words in page 29 should remain in or not.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, the Question was whether the words "Administrative County of London" should stand part of the clause or not.
  Amendments moved,
  [Break up Clause 30 into separate clauses as follows:—
  Lines 35, 3G, and 37 on page 27 to form a separate clause with a marginal note ("Guardians in London and county boroughs").
  From beginning of line 38 to end of line 19 on page 28 to form a separate clause with marginal note ("Vestries and District Boards in London").
  Lines 20 to 24 on page 28 to form a separate clause with marginal note ("Exercise of certain powers by Councils of county boroughs").
  Line 25, page 28, to end of line 15, page 2!), to form a separate clause with marginal note
  156
  ("Power to apply certain provisions of Act to urban districts and London").
  Lines 16 and 17 on page 29 to form a separate clause with marginal note ("Restrictions on application of Act to London and county boroughs").]
  Line 16, leave out ("aforesaid") and insert ("specially provided by this Act").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out that the Amendments proposed on page 29 would contradict Subsection (2).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that would not be the case, the subsection referring to the Administrative County of London.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the words were "save as aforesaid."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that was just as it was in the other place. It did not go the whole length of the Act.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Marquess's criticism had been made before.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that did not destroy its value.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the omission of the words "Administrative County of London" would make it less clear.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDthought "save as aforesaid" had been struck out and another form of words substituted.
  Amendments agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD LAMINGTONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment on the Taper—
  After Clause 30, to insert New Clause—("Before or after the appointed day it shall be the duty of the counsel of the Administrative County of London, the Corporation of the City of London, and so far as relates to its own and adjoining districts of every Sanitary Authority within the Metropolis, after due consideration, to make any representation to the Local Government Board as they think expedient for adjusting the boundaries of districts, for the amalgamation of existing districts, and the formation of new districts, and for transferring to the Council of the respective districts the duties of other Local Authorities within such districts (other than the duties of Guardians), and for abolishing the authorities whose duties are so transferred.
  The Local Government Board shall, unless for special reasons they think that the representation ought not to be entertained, cause inquiry to be made, and may make a Provisional Order for the proposal contained in

  157
  such representation and for such other proposal as they may deem expedient, or may refuse such Order. The Local Government Hoard may make a Provisional Order in pursuance of this section without any representation as in this section mentioned. A Provisional Order under this section shall not be of any effect until it is confirmed by Parliament.
  For the purpose of this section all the provisions of the Local Government (England and Wales) Act. 1888, shall, so far as they are not inconsistent with this Act, be incorporated with this Act, and the Commissioners appointed under Section 61 of the said Act of 1888 shall be the Commissioners for the purposes of this Act.")
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.

PART III.

  AREAS AND BOUNDARIES.
  Clause 31 (Duties and powers of County Councils with respect to area and boundaries.)
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, he no longer saw on the Paper a Motion by Viscount Cross to omit Subsection (b), and if it was withdrawn he would call attention to the sub-section. The whole of this clause required very great consideration as regarded both its subject-matter and its drafting. It appeared to have received hardly any consideration in the House of Commons, for, having been originally negatived on the Motion of the President of the Local Government Board, it was afterwards reintroduced, and was only in the hands of hon. Members a few hours before it was passed. He should like to know what was the meaning of Sub-section (b)? The parishes referred to in the. sub-section might be said to form three classes. A parish might be within two rural sanitary districts or within two urban sanitary districts, or partly within an urban and partly within a rural sanitary district. In Sub-section (2) it was provided that "as from the appointed day" a parish which was divided between different urban sanitary districts should as regarded each part become a separate parish. What was the County Council to do in respect of these different parishes? Ho understood the intention of the Bill was that, after these parishes were made separate parishes under this clause, the County Council was to have an opportunity of considering the boundaries and making any change in them that might
  158
  be considered expedient in order to carry out, the intention of the Bill. If that was so, surely the clause should be worded in a, different way and should be placed in a different part of the Bill. He objected to the proposal to give the County Council power to settle the affairs of parishes within urban districts, for such parishes belonged to the Urban Sanitary Authorities and had nothing whatever to do with the rural sanitary districts. Friction between the Municipal Authorities and the County Council might be occasioned by the proposal to which he had referred. He mentioned this matter to enable the Government to give some explanation on the subject with a view to making the clause more clear and intelligible.
  LORD BELPERdesired to point out, before the noble Earl answered the question, that parts of the clause would be absolutely unworkable. He thought it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to translate this clause in any reasonable manner, and believed that some parts of it would in its present form be absolutely unintelligible. According to Clause 1, on the appointed day a parish that was partly within and partly without one sanitary district was to be divided proprio motu. With regard to the action of the County Council in the matter of grouping small parishes, he should like to know which was the appointed day referred to in Sub-section (2). It was impossible to be certain whether the boundaries were to be altered after the appointed day or before. There was no procedure provided for with regard to these small parishes until 1895. The Government should make the real meaning of the clause clear.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Lord had called attention to what appeared to him to be an inconsistency between Sub-section (b) of Clause 31 and Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, and asked how, if parishes were to be divided by Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, it could be intended that the County Council should afterwards have the power of dealing with them by way of division. The two sub-sections were perfectly consistent. The words in Subsection (3) of Clause 1—
  "subject to any alteration of area to be made by or in pursuance of this or any other Act,"
  were for the purpose of making the divi-

  159
  sion of parishes subject to consideration on the part of the County Council as to whether that division was a practicable one. It was essential, with regard to rural parishes, that some body should have the power of correcting anomalies, and where small fragments of parishes could not be constituted separate parishes to incorporate them with some other parish. He directed the last speaker's (Lord Belper's) attention to Clause 78, Sub-section (3), for the statutory interpretation of the word "forthwith." Inasmuch as the Bill provided that the consent of the parish meeting had to be given before grouping took place, he saw no necessity for any inquiry into the matter. It was the necessary consequence of the alteration made in the Bill, requiring that there should be no grouping except with the consent of the different bodies interested. "Forthwith" was not confined to grouping alone.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that if it was the intention of Sub-section (b) to provide that if there was any difficulty with respect to boundaries or areas after parishes were divided the County Council might inquire and rectify them, it was a pity the intention was not more clearly expressed in the Bill. The expressions used in the clause were most vague and unsatisfactory, and should be made plain so that nobody could misunderstand them. He hoped some words might still be inserted showing what the intention clearly was. It appeared to him to be an objectionable feature of the Bill that the County Council was given the power of arranging the boundaries of urban parishes entirely within the area of an urban sanitary district. If more distinct words were not introduced in the clause he should be disposed to move the omission of the sub-section.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the division under Clause I would take place on the appointed day, and immediately after that the County Council would proceed to act. He saw no difficulty in this arrangement. It had been urged that the clause was vague and obscure, but it must be remembered that the subject was one of great complexity, and he doubted whether words could be introduced in the clause which would make its meaning perfectly obvious to
  160
  every one. If, as he said, his noble Friend approved the main object of the clause, he saw no reason why his noble Friend should take such an objection to the machinery. It had been the desire of all reformers connected with local government legislation for many years to endeavour if possible to put an end to the extraordinary anomalies connected with boundaries which existed all over the Kingdom. Nothing in this direction would be accomplished until some authority was given the power to carry the work out—to remedy these things, and not merely to talk about them. If they waited for an application on the part of the different bodies interested to be made nothing whatever would be done. He was not blind to the force of the objection raised by his noble Friend, but he failed to sec how they could avoid the interference with urban districts in relation to their boundaries. On the whole, he thought it was best to lodge with the County Councils the power of revising boundaries, for through the County Councils it might be hoped to get some symmetry and some kind of order. The Committee must either make up its mind to leave the present chaotic state of things existing or empower them to enable the County Councils to make an effort to get these boundaries arranged.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdemurred to the noble Lord's expression as to the power being "lodged in the County Council." The duty was imposed upon them; no discretion was left to them; and to that he greatly objected with reference to these rural sanitary districts. A rural sanitary district was seldom co-extensive with the parishes. He supposed that sanitary districts were arranged according to drainage areas.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that sanitary districts were coterminous with Unions.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYbelieved there were a number of parishes the boundaries of which corresponded with drainage areas, and the duty imposed on County Councils they could hardly possibly perform.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that a Rural Sanitary Authority was coterminous with a Union, except where there was a borough included in the Union. He only wished the noble

  161
  Marquess was correct, and that the boundaries of urban districts did correspond with drainage areas. It had been overlooked that the sub-section, requiring the consent of the parish meeting, related only to the grouping of parishes under a common Parish Council.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he saw no provision for the election of a Parish Council for more than a year and a-half after the appointed day. The noble Marquess had pointed out that the section related to grouping; but it referred also to parishes under 500, which could only have a Parish Council if the County Council chose to give it them. Questions sometimes turned up where not expected, and if he was correct nothing could be done in these small parishes for two years hence. The point required clearing up—when they were to get the Parish Councils, if they did not get them by the appointed day.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that was a consequence of raising the population limit to 500, for which the Government were not responsible; but, of course, the Government would consider the necessity for a further change.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked for information as to Sub-section (c), which brought parishes under 500 under the operation of the clause. He had looked through all the sections, and could not make out what was to be done to these small parishes under 500 population, which were very numerous, amounting to much over 8,000. What was the use or meaning of Sub-section (c)? Unless a clear explanation was given he should move to omit the sub-section.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the scope of the clause was to enable the Act to be carried into effect in the cases mentioned—as, for instance, if it was necessary to make any change by which the whole parish should fall into one sanitary district.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYpointed out that was covered by Sub-section (a).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, (a) referred to grouping. The object was, as far as possible, to bring the smaller areas within the larger ones as might be convenient. Cases might occur where they were outside a district and where it would be desirable to bring
  162
  them in, in order as much as possible to avoid confusion. The matter was so complex that it was almost, impossible to describe shortly the object of the clause.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, a rural parish of less than 500 would not have a representative. He did not see the use of Sub-section (c), and did not understand it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYunderstood the object was to prevent overlapping, and surely these poor little parishes of under 500 overlapped nobody. Then, why were they included? The case of every parish under 500 was to be considered by the County Councils, on the chance that here and there one might be found to overlap.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, when parishes partly within and partly without a rural sanitary district were divided a small fragment only might fall outside the Rural Authority—so small that it would be inconvenient that it should be separately dealt with. Everybody would desire that those fragments should be put into another parish. Subsection (c), therefore, seemed to be absolutely essential.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKunderstood wherever overlapping occurred, whether the parish was large or small, they should come under the section. It did not matter whether the population was under 500 or not; if there were two sanitary districts they would come under the operation of Sections (a) and (b); but there was nothing in the section to show why in this respect parishes under 500 were to be dealt with differently from other small parishes.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the section enabled County Councils to deal with them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was not an enabling power—they were compelled to do it. Notices were to be given, and they were to make inquiries.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, they were not compelled to do anything, but only to take cases into consideration and do what was necessary. This power would enable a small parish of perhaps 20 inhabitants to be annexed by the County Council.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKpointed out that would be grouping.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, no doubt the noble Earl had put his finger upon the very point. In one sense that would be grouping.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it should be made clear this should not be done by the County Council without the consent of the inhabitants.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)pointed out that the grouping could never become effectual without the consent of the parish grouped.
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, considerable delay would arise under this clause. As he could not see the application of this Sub-section (c), he would support his noble Friend's proposal to leave it out.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsuggested that, as nobody appeared to understand what Sub-section (c) meant, their Lordships had better leave it out.
  LORD NORTONsaid, if the subsection were not left out great difficulties would be created.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBYrepeated, that as it was clear that nobody on either side of the House could explain or could understand what the sub-section meant, it would be much safer to leave it out.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, their omission would make it impossible for the County Council to take into consideration the grouping to be done under Clause 1.
  Moved to omit Sub-section (V).—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Verbal Amendment.
  LORD BELPER moved (for the Marquess of HUNTLY)to add words to paragraph I of Sub-section 1 to provide that a rural district should not be divided unless the County Councils concerned or, in case of difference between them, the Local Government Board should for special reasons otherwise direct. He would not make himself answerable for the words of the Amendment, but believed that it would apply to such cases as Peterborough and Tam-worth, where there were three or four sanitary districts, and which desired to be left as they were.
  *LORD NORTONsaid, he had an Amendment on the Paper for the same purpose, which provided that the division of any rural district overlapping a county boundary should be subject to its being shown that such division would not be prejudicial to the district. No one was more anxious than himself for the rectification of boundaries, and all legislation had followed the Report of the Commission of 1871 on the subject. Any advantage, however, so derived might be outweighed altogether by the special injury done to localities from the severance of districts which had long acted together. He therefore proposed that a rural sanitary district overlapping a county boundary should not have the portion in each county made a separate area if sufficient reasons wore given to the County Councils concerned, or, on their disagreement, to the Local Government Board, that such severance would be specially prejudicial to the interests of the district. Tamworth, one of the cases alluded to by Lord Belper, which had 12 parishes in Warwickshire and 10 in Staffordshire, had for a long time been engaged together upon large sewer, water supply, and anti-pollution works, and loans had boon raised on the district for those purposes. Serious injury would be caused by the severance of such districts, 58 of which had memorialized the Local Government Board to the effect of this Amendment.
  LORD MONK BRETTONhoped that the Committee would not agree to either of the two Amendments. He thought it better to leave the words as they stood in the clause.
  *THE DUKE OF RUTLANDthought that the clause in its present form left a great hiatus, as it did not say what was to happen if the County Councils did not agree as to the revision of the boundaries. Take the case of the Union of Stamford, which was in three different counties. It was quite on the cards that might be affected by the re-arrangement of boundaries; then what was to happen under this clause?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that where more than one County Council were concerned the revision of the boundaries would be referred to a joint committee constituted under the Act of 1867. The difference between himself and the noble Lord opposite

  165
  (Lord Norton) was merely as to change of onus, and this did not, seem to be a matter of very great, importance.
  LORD NORTONsaid, that the noble Karl had exactly hit upon the difference between them; but the distinction was, he thought, important. The Bill left the matter simply to the arbitrium of the County Council, and, as he had pointed out, a division would be fatal in some oases to great public works. It was not desirable to give the County Councils this arbitrary power.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the proviso was "if sufficient reasons were given" to the County Council. Perhaps the noble Lord meant that if no reasons were given it should not be done. It was, therefore, not a question of their being satisfied, but of sufficient reasons being shown.
  LORD BELPERsaid, the point might be met by an alteration in the words. The area under the jurisdiction of the County Council and the whole of the rural districts would be under the same Administrative County unless otherwise directed for special reasons. It, looked here as if the matter were to be left in the hands of one County Council, and nobody could say which County Council that was to be. The question of an appeal to the Local Government Board would arise later.
  LORD NORTONdesired to add words as had been suggested—"to the satisfaction of the County Council."
  LORD MONK BRETTON: "Or County Councils."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that was unnecessary, as the singular in recent legislation always meant the plural.
  Amendment agreed to in the following form:—
  ("But a rural sanitary district overlapping a county boundary shall not have the portion in each county made a separate area, if reasons are given which satisfy the County Councils concerned, or, on their disagreement, the Local Government Board, that such severance would be specially prejudicial to the interests of the district").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmoved—
  In page 30, line 0, to leave out from the word ("parish") to the word ("shall") in line 11, and insert the words ("in the case of a parish situate in more than one urban district, including a county borough").
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that this would make the clause unintelligible.
  LORD BELPERsaid, his attention had been called to this matter by people who were much interested in it. He would show their Lordships that this clause entirely disagreed with the subsequent parts of the Bill, and was out of harmony with the present law under the Local Government Act, 1888. If these words were omitted it would give power to the, County Councils to say that the parishes for Poor Law purposes should all be within the districts of the boroughs. He did not think that was the intention of the clause. He hoped the noble Earl would not press this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he understood that his noble Friend was quite satisfied with the words remaining precisely as they stood.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he was quite satisfied to let them remain as they were.
  THE KARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, if the noble Lord would be satisfied with putting the words again in their appropriate place he had no objection.
  LORD BELPERsaid, when one provision was transposed and another introduced, which was not in the Bill before, it wits very difficult to tell what was meant.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY, in order to meet the special cases of Edmonton, Tettenham, and other districts, moved—
  In line 20, to leave out the word ("but") and insert the words ("unless the County Council for special reasons otherwise direct").
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKasked why the same provision was not made in the first clause?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONpointed out that it was only to be "if the County Council think fit."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the object of the Amendment was to meet, special cases which he was told existed in Middlesex.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Verbal and drafting Amendments.
  LORD BELPERmoved to insert, after Sub-section 10—

  167
  "Provided that no such order shall take effect without the consent in writing of the several County Councils represented on such joint committee."
  The Amendment raised two points, and he had thought it better to take the latter portion first. They referred to all the previous sections dealing with the joint committees. The question ho wished to raise was whether in cases where three or more comities were represented on the joint committee a bare majority of that committee would have power to make an order notwithstanding the protest of the minority. In the event of no order being made the matter would go before the Local Government Board for decision, and then, of course, the voice of each County Council would be heard. It was, he thought, very undesirable that a bare majority should be empowered to make an order in such cases, and he therefore trusted that this proposal would be accepted.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 32, after line 3, to insert as a new sub-section—("Every Report made by the Boundary Commissioners under the 'Local Government Boundaries Act, 1887,' shall be laid before the Council of any administrative county or borough affected by that Report, and before any joint committee appointed under Sub-section 10, and it shall be the duty of such Councils and joint committees to take them into consideration before framing any order under the powers conferred on them under this Act. Provided that no such order shall take effect without the consent in writing of the several County Councils represented on such committee").—(The Lord Helper.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that what his noble Friend desired had been provided for by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton). At present the joint committees under the Act of 1888 were not subject to these restrictions, and there had never been the right of veto by one Council represented on them. The case of one County Council being overridden by two others could not arise under the clause, because there was an appeal to the Local Government Board.
  LORD BELPERdid not agree that Lord Norton's proposal would meet the case.
  *THE MARQUESS OP RIPONsaid, the third county must be heard, because it would be represented on the joint committee. The effect of the Amendment would be really to delay this most desirable measure. Very little had been done in
  168
  these matters since the Act of 1888, and the real object was to expedite boundary arrangements. The adoption of this Amendment would throw the whole matter back into the condition in which it had been since 1888. The joint committees had extensive power, but it was intended that they should act by a majority. It would be a pity to throw the matter back into the position which had existed for the last six years.
  LORD BELPERsaid, unless the noble Earl would give an assurance that satisfactory regulations should be made with regard to the procedure on the joint committees, he would not withdraw his Amendment, as it seemed to be the only safeguard against a County Council being overridden by two others, although it might have right on its side. He only wanted to secure that each case should be decided on its merits.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, the Amendment raised an important point. A majority of the three Councils would decide, and what would be the feeling of the defeated Council? It would consider itself victimised by the hostile decision of the other two Councils. To invoke such a result was inadvisable, and ho would therefore support the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved, in page 32, line 4, to omit the term of "two years" for the County Council making orders. This was rather an important Amendment, though ho was not sure that he would press it. The proviso was that—
  "Every County Council shall, within two years after the passing of this Act, or within such further period as the Local Government Board may allow either generally or with reference to any particular matter, make such orders as they deem necessary for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation."
  The County Councils had been given freedom in these matters of amalgamation, and might decide that alterations of boundary were sometimes desirable and sometimes not. Extreme susceptibility of feeling existed throughout the country with regard to these matters of boundaries, and it was very doubtful whether these large powers should be given even to the Local Government Board, though no doubt their inquiries were singularly well conducted. What was the use of telling the Councils to decide on the expediency

  169
  or not of altering boundaries during two years, if the Local Government Board was to have the power of reversing their decisions immediately afterwards? Would the Local Government Board he able to deal with cases already decided, or only with untouched or new cases?
  Amendment moved,
  In page 32, line 4, to leave out from the word ("shall") to the word ("either") in line 6.—(The Earl of Harrowby)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, in regard to making adjustments, they would get into great difficulties if they tied the hands of the Local Authorities too tightly. Possibly the County Councils might make mistakes, and in that case everybody would be anxious to go to the Local Government Board to get the required alteration made. He had not found the authorities in London very desirous of interfering in these matters, and thereby bringing a nest of hornets about their ears; but in case it was desirable the power should be given.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, the power was quite limited. It was not a general power to the County Councils, but only for the purpose of bringing this Act into operation, and he thought it was quite safe.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it was important to get the work done, and. as he had said before, he had every confidence in the Local Government Board.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Consequential Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 (Provision as to parishes having parts with defined boundaries), agreed to.
  Clause 33 (Orders for grouping parishes and dissolving groups).
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 32, after line 26, to insert as a new sub-section—("The whole area under each Parish Council shall, unless the County Council, for special reasons, otherwise direct, be within the same Administrative County and County District").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 34 (Provisions for increase and decrease of population).
  On the Motion of the Earl of WINCHIL-SEA, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 33, line 15, to leave out the word ("two") and insert the word ("live").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 35 (Confirmation of and appeals from County Councils).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the next Amendment would, he thought, be generally approved. It was to prevent the necessity of having decisions come to by the County Councils ratified by the Local Government Board. Great inconvenience had been caused by that necessity in small cases, and he therefore proposed to omit these words.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 33, line 27, after the word ("parishes") to insert the words ("and an order relating to the custody of parish documents or requiring the approval of the Charity Commissioners and an order requiring the consent of the parish meeting for any part of the parish to any act or class of acts of the Parish Council").
  [Break up Clause 35 into two clauses, one with the marginal note ("Certain orders of County Council not to require confirmation"); the other with the marginal note ("Reduction of time for appealing against County Council orders")].
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.

PART IV.

  SUPPLEMENTAL.
  Parish Meetings and Elections.
  Clause 36 (Removal of disqualification of married women).
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNmoved an Amendment to extend to women all the qualifications which under the Bill entitle men to be or to be placed on the Register. He said, he did not propose in any way to alter the position of women as compared with men with reference to voting for local government purposes. Up to the present time the vote was conferred upon those, and those only, who were on the Local Government Register, and this Bill for the first time extended the power of voting to those who were on the Parliamentary Register. Tito result was that a vote for local purposes was given to owners, lodgers, and those enjoying the service

  171
  franchise. But women not being on the Parliamentary Register would not be able to vote in respect of any of these franchises, and thus for the first time a distinction was drawn between women and men with regard to the vote for local purposes.
  Amendments moved,
  In page 34, line I, after ("disqualified") insert ("by sex or").
  Line 5, after ("on") insert ("or being placed on"), and after ("electors") insert ("in respect of any qualification which, under this Act. entitles any man to be thereon or to be placed thereon").—(The Earl of Camperdown).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not prepared to agree to the proposed extension of the clause. It involved a principle which ought not to be introduced at this stage, and it would, he thought, give rise to a great deal of confusion and trouble.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he conceived that the Parliamentary Register was introduced with the object of giving lodgers, owners, and service franchise holders a vote for local purposes. If it was right for the first time to extend this privilege to men, why should it be withheld from women, who bad hitherto enjoyed equal rights of voting with men in respect of all local concerns?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the proposal of the Bill would involve no additional cost in the preparation of the Register. But if the Amendment were carried a new Register would be required, and its preparation and revision would make these elections much more expensive. Of course, it would be necessary to sec that voters did not get on improperly.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, hitherto their Lordships had had presented to them the argument of principle, but now they heard arguments based on expediency and cheapness. He did not think much weight ought to be given to them.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he, like the noble Earl opposite, did not attach much weight to the objection on the ground of expense. If the proposal was good, he thought they might very well incur the cost of carrying it into effect. But he had always felt that the lodger question was the great difficulty in their way. He did not know
  172
  whether the noble Lord had pictured to himself what canvassing would be if he put in the lodger franchise. He thought this was too wide a change to be adopted without reflection.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, as he did not propose himself to canvass, that objection did not affect him.
  Amendments negatived.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he thought, on consideration, that it was proposed by this section that the wife should vote only if she had separate property of her own. If so, he would not move his Amendment to leave out the clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, that certainly was so.
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA pointed out that it was provided the husband and wife should not be qualified in respect of the same property, but it was not provided which of the two was to be qualified.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 37 (Register of parochial electors).
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he had on the Paper several Amendments consequential on the proposal he made on Clause 1, to eliminate the Parliamentary franchise from the Bill. In consequence of the decision at which the House had arrived with regard to the compound householder, ho would not again raise the question upon Report. He would, therefore, withdraw the Amendments in his name.
  Amendments (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Verbal Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 38 (Supplemental provisions as to parish meetings), agreed to.
  Clause 39 (Disqualifications for Parish or District Council).
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, Lord Herries's Amendment was merely for the purpose of preventing a farmer who desired to transport materials from being disqualified.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 36, line 33, after the second word ("or") to insert the words ("in the transport

  173
  of materials for the repair of roads or bridges in his own immediate neighbourhood, or").—(The Lord Herries.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYmoved—
  In page 37, line 13, after Sub-section (4), to insert as a new sub-section—"A person disqualified for being a Guardian shall also be disqualified for being a Rural District Councillor."
  VISCOUNT DE VESCIsaid, on this an important question arose with regard to the way in which medical officers throughout the country might be affected. Possibly medical officers might be disqualified from being members of Boards of Guardians or Parish Councils. He did not know whether that was intended under the Bill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was not, but this did no! (ouch Parish Councils.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendment was agreed to: —
  In line 27, after the word ("disqualified") to insert the words ("or votes when prohibited".)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, with regard to the next Amendment, that elected auditors were now subject to the same qualification as members of a. District Council.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 32, after the word ("Council") to insert the words ("and in the case of London auditors, as it they were members of a District Council").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  *THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAasked whether it was intended to disqualify medical officers of a Board of Guardians, not only from being on a District Council but on a Parish Council?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his answer was that that was not intended.
  THE BISHOP OF ELYasked whether chaplains would be disqualified?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYthought not, certainly, but would give a reply on Report.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the question was fully discussed in the other House, and it was quite understood that any person who was an officer of a
  174
  District Council or Board of Guardians was not thereby disqualified from sitting on a Parish Council.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 40 (Supplemental provisions as to Parish Councils), agreed to.
  Clause 4l (Supplemental as to elections, polls, and tenure of office).
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that this clause related to the election of Boards of Guardians. He proposed to add another to the six sub-sections fixing the scale of expenses. Clerks of Guardians were now ex officio returning officers, and their remuneration was fixed by the Local Government Board.
  Amendment moved,
  Sub-section (2). page38, line 41, after ("elections") to insert as a separate paragraph: "(vii.) For fixing the scale of expenses of any election under this Act").—(The Lord Chelmsford.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYgreatly preferred to leave the matter to the County Councils. There was nothing in these small duties which the County Councils could not carry out. Rates of remuneration must vary in different places. They might as well lay down that the police should have the same rate of payment everywhere. The County Councils could best decide what was the proper remuneration to be given.
  Amendment negatived.
  Verbal and consequential Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 42 (Provision as to parish meeting for part of parish) agreed to, with verbal Amendments.
  The following clauses were agreed to, with consequential and drafting Amendments:—
  Clause 43 (Supplemental provisions as to Overseers).
  Parish and District Councils.
  Clause 44 (Public notices).
  Clause 45 (Supplemental provisions as to transfer of powers).
  Clause 46 (Supplemental provisions as to adoptive Acts).
  Clause 47 (Effect on Parish Council of constitution of urban district).
  Verbal Amendments.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the clause related to the constitution of new urban districts, and to their extension. It was proposed to apply it to cases where the area was diminished.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 34, at end of clause to add as a new sub-section—(",) Where the area of an urban district is diminished this section shall apply with the necessary modifications").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 48 (Power to change name of district or parish).
  Verbal Amendments.
  Clause 49 (Committees of Parish or District Councils).
  Drafting Amendment.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHmoved an Amendment requiring a special resolution of the Council authorising the committee to act. The object of the Amendment was to give to the Council power to delegate before again meeting. If Her Majesty's Government thought it unnecessary or inadvisable to give them such a power, he would not press the Amendment.
  THE EARL OK KIMBERLEYsaid, at present they could act without that restriction, and it would not work well.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 50 (Joint Committees) agreed to, with verbal Amendment.
  Clause 51 (Audit of accounts of District and Parish Councils and inspection).
  [See 1888, s. 71.]
  *LORD DE RAMSEYmoved, after the word "accounts," to insert the words "showing all outstanding liabilities." He urged that it was necessary that not only the accounts but the debts should be published, in order that the ratepayers might understand in what position they really were.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the accounts which had to be submitted for audit were very complicated, and he was afraid such a burden would almost
  176
  break the back of the parish officials. It was much better left to the Local Government Board.
  *LORD DE RAMSEYsaid, he must take the opinion of the Committee upon this Amendment. He would quote one example in point. He was elected chairman of a Local Board in a parish of 17,000 acres. On looking into the accounts after they had been audited he found a very heavy debt existing on the parish of which nobody knew anything except the members of the Local Board. As these new bodies were to have powers of expenditure it would be rather hard on the parishes that they should not know what their liabilities were.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 45, line 21, after the word ("accounts") to insert ("showing all outstanding liabilities").—(The Lord De Ramsey.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that would be a proper matter upon which to communicate with the Local Government Board, pointing out that an alteration in the form was advisable.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKthought it was not at all a matter of form, but very much of substance, and he hoped the noble Lord would press it.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 52 (Supplemental provisions as to District Councils), agreed to.
  Miscellaneous.
  Clause 53 (Supplemental provisions as to Guardians).
  *THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved to insert a sub-section empowering the Council of each county by order to direct that in any rural sanitary district within their county the District Councillors for any parish or other area should not be the representatives of that parish or other area on the Board of Guardians, and that there should be for such parish or area such separate election of Guardians as is provided by Section 20. He urged that power ought to be given to the County Councils in populous districts to decide that Rural Sanitary Authorities and Boards of Guardians should be elected separately. The only alternative would be for the County Councils to create small Local Boards. These bodies were not very wealthy, and were unable

  177
  to pay officials to adequately perform the duties required.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYcould not agree to the Amendment, as it was contrary to the scheme of the Bill, He observed that both trouble and expense would be saved by having these bodies elected at the same election. It was not desirable to have a number of consecutive elections, and it was one of the objects which Her Majesty's Government had in view not to burden the country with an undue number of them. The cardinal point was to elect at the same time members of the District Councils and Boards of Guardians.
  Amendment negatived.
  Verbal Amendments.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 54 (Place of meeting of Parish or District Council or Board of Guardians).
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONmoved to leave out the clause. He said, that their Lordships would recollect that during the progress of the Bill the Lord President of the Council had from time to time taken as his text, "I trust the people." So did he himself trust the people. But before the Bill had left the Committee the noble Earl had shown that he did not trust the people. That only showed—and he did not mean to say that the remark applied to the noble Earl alone—how hard it was for men to practise what they preached. One would think from the clause that those who formed Parish and District Councils, if they met in a public-house, must get drunk. He trusted the people too much to think that that would be the ease. These people, the noble Earl had told them, would be respectable persons, and would properly perform their duty. It was rather hard, therefore, for the noble Earl to come forward now and say there was only one thing in which he could not trust them, and that was their sobriety; that, excellent men of business though they might be, they would all get. intoxicated, and that the business of the parish would be to that extent neglected. He was quite content to leave it to the good sense, good feeling, and good manners of these people to act in the way the noble Earl had so often said they would act on all occasions.
  Moved, to leave out the clause.—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he did not think the clause implied such distrust as the noble Duke suggested, or any suspicion that the members of those Councils could not meet in a public-house without getting drunk. There was no doubt that a very strong feeling prevailed among a large number of the working classes that the public-house was an unsuitable place for such meetings, and many of them would feel a considerable difficulty in going to the public-house after having taken, perhaps, a strong line in support of the temperance movement. He was not a teetotaler himself. Their Lordships would be very much mistaken in supposing that the temperance question was one which was prominent only in the minds of a few enthusiastic persons. No doubt there were public-houses which were extremely well conducted, and which naturally served as the gathering place of the village, and where very few incidents occurred such as the noble Duke had suggested and contemplated. At the same time, he thought that, on the whole, their Lordships would act wisely in excluding the public-house from being the natural place of meeting for these new bodies. He thought it would be an anomalous thing to adopt the Amendment, and he hoped their Lordships would retain the clause as it stood.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he would not enter into the general temperance question. He quite agreed with the Archbishop of York that there was a large body of working men who held strong views on temperance. It was to a great extent a geographical question. He did not believe that in the South of England, or even in London, that feeling was at all strong, though, no doubt, it was very strong in the northern parts of the country. If he were in favour of the absolute prohibition of alcohol, which he certainly was not, he did not think he could vote for the clause. It seemed to him a grave insult to the class of persons whom they expected to be elected to those Councils that, whereas every other body might meet, and did meet, at public-houses, the Government selected them for special brand as people who were particularly

  179
  liable to succumb to temptation. Surely all classes of persons in many parts of the country habitually used public-houses without evil results for meetings of this kind. Friendly Societies of all kinds constantly met in public - houses. Licensed premises were not always coincident with public-houses, but included large hotels, which frequently contained large rooms used for the holding of public meetings. He had himself often presided over railway meetings held on licensed premises, such as the Cannon Street Hotel and the Charing Cross Hotel. Numberless clubs in London of various kinds held their meetings on licensed premises. The noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was, like himself, a member of a literary club—the Roxburghe Club—which always held its meetings on licensed premises.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY)said, he thought it met at the residence of the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, only once, and he did not get a licence in consequence. He certainly had met the noble Earl on licensed premises, and was afraid he could not get off in that way. His noble Friend Lord Norton was the secretary of a Society which always met on licensed premises.
  LORD KNUTSFORD: So is Lord Kimberley.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: And Lord Herschell.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, in no other class of society bad they ever dreamt either of forbidding, or of making it a matter of stigma, to meet on licensed premises for the transaction of such business as they needed. It was reserved for those particular people to whom they were now to entrust the great interests that were concerned in the government of their parishes and Unions. It was a grave insult to them, and he was sure it would be felt so in many parts of the country. But there was something besides the sentimental question; there was also the practical question. The public-house, or the hotel, was very often the most suitable place for meeting. Power, no doubt, was given to meet in schools, but schools, though very well suited for public meetings, were very badly suited for meetings of Boards. They could only get the use of schools
  180
  on Saturdays, when the farmers were often at market, and it would be very inconvenient to hold the meetings of these Councils on that day. Besides, there was this further disadvantage—that they would have to clear away the benches and desks, bring in a table and chairs, and perhaps lay down a carpet, and all this would have to be done and cleared away on the same day, when perhaps there might be close by in a railway hotel or in a public-house a room which was perfectly convenient for the purpose. He hoped their Lordships would not retain the clause.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the noble Marquess had rather changed his ground on this question in his very temperate and moderate speech. The other night he spoke of those who supported the clause as being actuated by "a Puritanical hypocrisy."
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he was referring to particular speakers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYdid not know who the speakers were. The noble Marquess certainly gave the general impression that he intended to express himself very severely. His present ground was very remarkable indeed, because he now said that the clause was an insult to all those who would be elected on these Councils. Then it must be supposed that it was an insult to Parliamentary candidates, who were not allowed to hold meetings at a public-house. He ventured to think that if they were to reject the clause on the ground that it would be an insult to the working classes, a very short time indeed would elapse before their Lordships would find out that a very large body of the working classes would regard it as an insult, not that the clause had been inserted, but that it had been struck out. The Archbishop of York had in his wise and temperate speech clearly explained the grounds on which this clause should be supported even by temperance advocates. Ho disclaimed altogether any peculiar or special sympathy with teetotalers or with those who entirely abstained from alcoholic liquors. He had never been a member of any Society for that purpose and did not share their views; but, on the other hand, he felt great respect for, and great sympathy with, those large numbers of the working

  181
  classes who were suffering from evils totally unknown to their Lordships, who felt the risk to their own children, and who were far better able to judge than their Lordships what it was desirable for them to avoid, and who were, therefore, desirous that a temptation which they regarded as so dangerous should be put as little as possible in the way of themselves and their friends. They all wished, of course, that those meetings should always be orderly, respectable, and conducted in such a manner as could be approved by all, and he was perfectly certain that if there was one clause in the Bill which was, on the whole, desired by the respectable part of the population of this country it was the clause they were now considering. He earnestly hoped their Lordships would not commit what he believed would be a most grievous error in rejecting the clause.
  *THE EARL of SELBORNEsaid, he hoped the noble Duke would not press his Amendment. He could not see any serious practical objection to the clause, because it contained the words
  "except in cases where, no other suitable rooms were available."
  None of their Lordships would think it a, bad thing that payment of Saturday wages in public-houses should be prohibited when it could possibly take place anywhere else. The clause practically applied to the Parish Councils only: because, though Guardians and District Councils also were mentioned, the Hoards of Guardians, and the District. Councillors who were identical with them, would probably meet, as had been usual, in the workhouses. The reason for the clause would apply not so much to the members of the Councils, but to the people who might be in attendance, most of whom might belong to the poorer classes. The danger might not be very great, but he could not see, any serious practical objection to the clause worded as it was, and it would not be wise for their Lordships to differ on this point from the other House.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he should greatly regret this clause being taken out of the Bill. There was a strong feeling in those parts of the country with which be was connected against giving official sanction to the use of public-houses for the purposes of the meetings of the Parish Councils. Al-
  182
  though he did not share the fears that were entertained by some people as to the evils that were likely to arise from holding these meetings in public-houses, still upon the whole ho thought that it would be the wiser course to retain the clause in the Hill. In these circumstances, ho should be unable to vote for the Amendment which had been moved by the noble Duke, but must vote with the Government.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKtook much the same view. It was only a proviso for the use of a. room in case of necessity where no other proper place could be found. That was as far as it was necessary to go.
  *LORD KNUTSFORDasked whether it was thought that parish meetings would be free from temptation? Because this clause only applied to District and Parish Councils.
  *THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble and learned Earl opposite and from the noble Earl near him, he felt that he should not be justified in pressing his Motion to a Division. He therefore begged to withdraw it.
  *THE BISHOP OF LONDONwished to point out that the feeling with regard to this clause was exceedingly strong in some parts of the country. There had been no idea in the minds of those who advocated the insertion of this clause to insult the members of the Parish Councils, but there wore among the classes of men who would necessarily be elected upon those Councils not a few who would deem it exceedingly objectionable to be obliged to attend meetings of the Councils in public-houses, some who would abstain from taking part in them altogether. It was only just that the feelings of such persons should be considered. Many respectable, members of the artisan class felt so strongly in reference to these matters that they would feel it, a great hardship to attend meetings in public-houses, and perhaps could not be induced to attend them at all.
  *LORD KNUTSFORDsuggested that the words "parish meeting or" should be inserted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there seemed a good deal to be said for the proposal, but it had better be left for the further stage.
  *LORD KNUTSFORDsaid, he would move their insertion in the clause on Report.
  Motion (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 55 (Permissive transfer to Urban District Council of powers of other Authorities) agreed to.
  Clause 56 (Supplemental provisions as to control of Overseers in urban districts) transposed before Sub-section 5 of Clause 30.
  Clause 57 (Provisions as to County Council acquiring powers of District Council.)
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBEBLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 42, line 15, after ("virtue of") insert ("a resolution under.")
  Line 20, after ("Council") insert ("and to the Local Government Board.")
  Page 49, line 10, leave out ("members") and insert ("constitution.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 58 (County Council may act through District Council.)
  LORD BELPERsaid, his Amendment was only to modify a clause which seemed to him to go rather too far with regard to the County Council employing the District Council in any administrative work.
  Amendment moved.
  In page 49, line 16, at end, to insert the words ("on matters arising in or affecting the interests of their own district.")—(The Lord Belper)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYagreed to the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): Ought it not, to be "its own district"?
  LORD BELPER: Yes. Let it read—
  "Matters arising in or affecting the interests of its own district."
  Amendment, as altered, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 59 (Saving for harbour powers.)
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  184
  In page 49, line 17, after the word ("commission") to insert the words ("affected by this Act.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 60 (Saving for elementary schools.)
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he wished to put in after the word ("control"), in line 26, the words ("or endowment.") There might be a doubt as to whether the clause, as now worded, would be interpreted as extending to endowment. He asked the Committee to preclude any possibility of doubt by inserting the words.
  Amendment moved,
  In line 26, after the word ("control") to insert the words ("or endowment.")—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKproposed to leave out from ("school"), in line 26, to the end of the clause.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 49, line 20, to leave out from the word ("school") to the end of the clause.—(The Marl of Cranbrook).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 61 (Transfer of property and debts and liabilities) agreed to.
  Clause 62 (Adjustment of property and liabilities).
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his Amendment to this clause was to provide for adjustments under the Arbitration Act.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 50, line 24, after the word ("agreement") to insert the words ("and as far as any such agreement does not extend.")—(The Earl of Kimberley).
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 63 (Power to deal with matters arising out of alteration of boundaries.)
  Amendment moved,
  In page 51, line 6, to leave out the words ("or under.")
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The next Amendment is to make it quite clear as to the powers to be exercised by

  185
  the County Council and that they should not be interfered with in certain cases.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 51, to leave out line it. and insert the words ("County Council desirable be made by the County Council. or, in the ease of an area situate in more than one county, by a joint committee of County Councils.")—(The Earl of Kemberley)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 64 (Summary proceeding for determination of questions as to transfer of powers.)
  On the Motion of the Earl of KI.MISEK-LEY the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 51, line 14, after ("parish") insert ("or in a District Council").
  In line 27, leave out ("decision") and insert ("determination").
  LORD CLINTONmoved,
  In page 51, line 27, after the word ("decision") to insert the words ("Provided that an appeal to the High Court of Justice from any decision of the Charity Commissioners under this section maybe presented only under the same conditions as are prescribed in the case of appeals to the High Court from Orders made by the Charity Commissioners under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1801").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Government had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 65 (Supplemental provisions as to County Council Orders.)
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 51, line 31, after the word ("Council") insert the words ("or joint committee").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 66 (Expenses of Local Government Board) agreed to.
  Clause 67 (Provision as to Sundays and Rank Holidays) agreed to.
  Clause 68 (Provisions as to Seilly Islands.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his Amendment to this clause was with regard to Provisional Orders applying to the Seilly Isles, and to provide proper public, notice. It was in accordance with the promise given by the Government.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 52, line 25. after the word ("Seilly") to insert the words ("and after such public notice as appears to the Local Government Hoard sufficient for giving information to all persons interested").—(The Marl of Kimberley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 69 (Construction of Act.)
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, it seemed to him that a better definition of the word "parish" was wanted than was contained in the Kill.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYpointed out that Section (5) of the Interpretation Act, 1889, provided that—
  "The expression 'parish' shall, unless the contrary intention appeal's, mean a place for which a separate poor rate is or can be made, or for which a separate Overseer is or can be appointed."
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND CORDON: Is there any objection to putting that in here?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But having the Interpretation Act it is inconvenient to repeat. There would he very little use in having an Interpretation Act.
  *THE EARL OF SELBORNEasked their Lordships to omit from ("building"), in line 26, to ("the"), in line 30, and insert—
  ("which, or the ownership, trusteeship, management, or control of which is by its legal constitution vested in ministers or officers for the time being of any particular church or denomination, either alone or jointly with other persons.")
  The words which he proposed to omit were in great haste added to the Bill. There had been very great and salutary activity on the part of the parochial clergy of the Church of England, especially within the last 50 years. From the Returns laid upon the Table of the House, formerly at the instance of the late Lord Hampton, and recently of the Duke of Westminster, it appeared that for church building repairs and restoration only about £42,000,000 had been provided by the voluntary contributions of Churchmen within the period of 50 years. If all other kinds of expenses incidental to the parochial ministry of the Church were the subject of like computation it would be found that a very large addition indeed ought to be made to that

  187
  sum. The activity of the clergy had been very much directed to the association with the ministry and work of the Church of various kinds of institutions useful from a moral, though temporal, point of view to their people. There was not the smallest doubt that where the Nonconformists were numerous they had done exactly the same kind of thing and in similar ways. Thus what were called by those who established them parish rooms, by the influence and through the energy and activity of the clergy, had come into existence. Returns which some Churchmen had endeavoured to obtain upon this subject showed that of the number of rooms included in them one only was earlier than 1850; 9 per cent. between 1850 and 1860; 22 per cent. between 1860 and 1880; 48 per cent. between 1880 and 1890; and 20 per cent. between 1890 and 1893. The building of those rooms was going on still. Not much more than a fortnight ago he had been asked to assist in the establishment of a room of that kind. These rooms, though not in terms dedicated for use as mission rooms, or Sunday schools, or otherwise for religious uses of any particular Church or denomination, were liable to be used, and were from time to time used, for such purposes at the discretion of those who were constituted trustees. They were also used as clubs and reading rooms and libraries under the management and regulation of the trustees. That management always kept in view the moral objects for which the Church existed, and desired to promote the principles and practice of morality. Founders of these rooms had invariably provided that the leading share of the management should be with the parochial clergy, at whose instance the buildings were erected. They were really as much a part of the equipment, and practical working system, of the parochial ministry of the Church, as if they had been for purposes more directly spiritual: and not the less so, because Nonconformists might be admitted to participate in their use. These rooms had been not only erected and established for these purposes directly connected with the useful work done by the parochial ministry; they had not only been provided by the clergy and through them, but no doubt for the most part by the contributions of Churchmen; and whoever were the contributors, whether Churchmen exclusively or Churchmen
  188
  aided by liberal-minded and generous Nonconformists, (as similar institutions of Nonconformists might be aided by liberal-minded and generous Churchmen,) it had been the purpose and object of the founders that they should be connected in this way with the ministry of the Church, bearing in mind that that ministry ought always to aim at the temporal as well as at the spiritual good of the people. The founders had intended that this should he the constitution of the trusts of those buildings. Turning to the clause of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord said he was quite willing to give credit to those who introduced the words which ho proposed to exclude for a desire to do justice in the Amendment which had been made in another place. But it was done in such a hurry, with the view of accelerating the despatch of business in the other House, that he must take the opportunity of saying, however good the intentions of those who did it, they had been most singularly unsuccessful if the intention was to do justice. In the first place, while recognising the principle three conditions were imposed. The first condition was that they should go to the Charity Commissioners and have a sort of preliminary litigation, or inquisition, into the history of every one of these buildings, and until the Charity Commissioners had come to a deliverance on the subject the clause would have no effect to save one of these buildings. Nothing could be less reasonable. The next thing was that the building must have been erected and provided within 40 years. On what principle was it to be taken away if it had existed for 41 years? He saw no more justice in taking away what was erected 41 years ago, than in taking what was of later dale. The Returns he had referred to showed nine buildings erected between 1850 and 1860. To take away those erected between 1850 and 1853 because they bad existed for above 10 years was the most arbitrary thing conceivable. Then the Charity Commissioners must be satisfied of a negative—namely, that it had been provided and established entirely by persons of one Church or denomination. What an unreasonable thing to require that the Commissioners should be satisfied that no Nonconformist, no person not belonging to the particular denomination, had contributed to

  189
  it. The principle was a vicious one, and the practice would be inconvenient and unreasonable. Why in the world because a liberal-minded Nonconformist had contributed to a church parish-room, or a liberal-minded Churchman had contributed to a similar building used for similar purposes by Nonconformists, were they to take it out of the category of buildings destined to the purposes to which all the contributors agreed? On the face of a trust so constituted the connection with a particular Church or denomination through its ministers and officers was appointed. To say that this was not to be treated on the same principle as ecclesiastical charities merely because some individual who was not a, Churchman had contributed was most unjust and most unreasonable. He was at a loss to understand how anyone could stand up and say it was right to divorce these rooms from their present legal administration, and place them, wholly on in part, under a different management, merely on the ground that somebody who was not a Churchman contributed 40 years ago. And how was such a negative as the clause required to be proved, unless in very recent cases? These rooms ought not to be severed from the Church connection and treated as secular parochial charities. The new managers introduced under the Bill might refuse to allow them to be used for ecclesiastical purposes, and the discipline and regulation, having the material and moral welfare of the people in view, might be handed over to those who would not keep the same objects in view. He, therefore, asked their Lordships to assent to his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 53, lines 26 to 29, to leave out from the word ("building"), in line 26,to ("The"), in line 30, and insert the words ("which, or the ownership, trusteeship, management, or control of which is by its legal constitution vested in ministers or officers for the time being of any particular Church or denomination, either alone or jointly with other persons").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid. he did not think the noble and learned Earl had quite sufficiently borne in mind the very strong desire which existed throughout the Kingdom that these parish rooms should not he reserved as ecclesiastical edifices, hut should be used for the secular purposes for which they were now used. The clause bad been very carefully framed for the purpose of
  190
  excluding from its operation all those rooms which were used for distinctly ecclesiastical purposes. But he was told that there were a very large number set up by Church people, which were put in the hands of the clergymen or Churchwardens for purely secular purposes, and it did seem hard that these rooms should be left as the appanage of the Church. He did not think it would contribute to the popularity of the Church if these rooms should not he available as they now were for secular purposes. If the limit of 40 years was indefensible, a limit of 100 years, or any other limit, would be equally indefensible. Some limitation, he thought, should be imposed to prevent the perpetuation of charities which had become wholly obsolete, and he did not think it was at all desirable that anybody should have the power to lock up property in such a way for an indefinite period. The concession of 40 years was a reasonable one, and the desire of those who framed the clause was to endeavour to meet the objection which had been taken. He thought, however, that there was a. good deal to be said for the objection that the clause was so framed that it was necessary that the building should be erected entirely by members of any particular denomination in order to be exempted from the operation of the clause. He thought that cases of hardship might occur, and that it would he rather unreasonable to push the matter so far as that, because it left no discretion in the Charity Commissioners, and cases might exist in which there might be some very small contribution by some person outside a denomination which really would not alter the character of the building. It seemed to him, looking at the matter generally, that some provision ought to be inserted in the Hill by which these rooms should he retained for secular purposes within the parish. A great number of these rooms had been founded for the general purposes of the parish, and if they were withdrawn from the cognizance of the new bodies rival buildings would be set up, with the result that great dissatisfaction would be felt with the Church. He should regret to see the clause eliminated altogether from the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, there was a great objection to the retention of the word "entirely" in the

  191
  clause, because on more than one occasion Nonconformists had been ready to contribute to the building of the parish church, which was purely an ecclesiastical edifice. If the word "mainly" were substituted for "entirely" it would go a long way to meet their difficulties, although he should prefer the Amendment. He could not agree with the Earl of Kimberley that a large number of these parish rooms were used exclusively for secular purposes, because in most instances they were also used for Bible and confirmation classes and other religious purposes connected with the Church. If they could secure all buildings used for religious purposes they would be satisfied. It appeared to him that the provision made by the Bill was quite insufficient to secure such buildings for the purposes for which those who erected them had in view. The proposal to exempt rooms of this kind from the clause would not hinder their use for secular purposes, for clergymen would, he hoped and believed, always allow them to be used for amusing and enlightening the people. He was not at all afraid of rival rooms being set up. He trusted the Government would consent to some modification of the clause, so that the word "entirely" should be omitted.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that some of their Lordships had not forgotten the scornful way in which pious founders and also posthumous gifts for various public and pious purposes had been spoken of some time ago by a very high authority. He did not think those who advocated this summary method of disposing of such gifts realised the effect it would have in discouraging gifts and foundations for public purposes in the future. The consequences might be very extensive. In England fewer sums had been left to benevolent purposes than in the United States, and legislation of this sort was not likely to elicit larger sums for these objects.
  *THE BISHOP OF LONDONpointed out that the proposals of the Government rested upon a kind of clean separation between the social and the spiritual work of the clergy, a distinction which never could be maintained. Clergymen must have a great deal to do with what was called secular work in dealing with their parishioners; and if the parish
  192
  rooms were taken away because they were largely used for so-called secular purposes, it was certain that the first thing which clergymen would do would be to build other parish rooms. It would be wrong to take away from the clergyman the instrument by which he had done this secular work.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)indicated that the only thing that would be done under the Bill would be the addition of a certain number of trustees as representing the parish, and he did not believe that the appointment of such trustees would diminish in any degree the influence of the clergy. On the other hand, the appointment of such persons might eradicate a large amount of discord and ill-feeling which occasionally existed at the present time, and it would promote satisfaction, content, and good relations between the clergyman and his parishioners. He did not regard the clause as at all hostile to the secular parish work of the clergy, and it was not from any hostility to the work of the clergymen in the parish that he supported this clause.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that up to the present time parish rooms and their management bad been absolutely non-political in character, but he believed that this provision would introduce a political element with much danger of dissension arising. He should support the Amendment of the noble Earl, because be thought it was a case of pure justice and a simple recognition of property. The question was not wholly what was the actual use made of the rooms at the present moment; that question could not be viewed by itself. Their Lordships must also take into consideration the fact that trusts had been formed, and were being formed every day, for the holding of properly and the management of such rooms. In very many cases he believed Dissenters and Nonconformists had subscribed to these rooms. In the diocese of Cornwall there was, in his time, scarcely a restoration of a church in which the Nonconformists had not joined, but those Nonconformists would have been astonished if they had been told that their subscriptions were to constitute any claim on the part of Nonconformity to the buildings. It was a common saying there, "The Church must not be let go down." It was with a truer

  193
  feeling, and with no desire to make a claim on the building's, that these gifts had been given. On the other hand, were Churchmen, clergymen, and benefactors of the Church to be treated as if they were hive-bees? Their gifts and structures and accumulations were to be possessed by the first who desired them. This was what would happen under the Bill, and, moreover, he was satisfied that not peace but dissension would prevail where now there was harmony.
  On question, that the words proposed to be left, out stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 17; Not-Contents 63.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEthen moved to insert the words—
  ("The expression 'affairs of the Church shall include the distribution of offertories or other collections made in any church.")
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he did not think the Amendment was necessary.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BELPER, in the absence of the Duke of St. Albans, moved an Amendment to line 34. There were people, the noble Lord said, who thought charity would include a school or endowment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 53, line 34. after the word ("parishes") to insert the words ("but shall not include any endowed school.")—(The Lord Belper.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): Would it not be better to deal with it on Report? It does not come in nicely now.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 70 (Extent of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 71 (Short title) agreed to.

PART V.

  TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.
  Clause 72 (First elections to Parish Councils).
  On the Motion of the Earl of Kimberley, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  194
  In page 54, lines Hi and 17, leave out the words ("by the rules for the") and insert the words ("by or under this Act for the first.")
  Line 24. after the word ("Councillors") insert ("and the first chairman of a parish meeting.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 73 (First elections of Guardians and District Councils.)
  On the Motion of the Earl of Kimberley, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  After line 31, insert, as a new sub-section —"Where a parish is divided by this Act into two or more new parishes, then, subject to any order made by the County Council, there shall be one Guardian, and if it is in a rural district, one District Councillor for each of such new parishes.
  Page 55, line 8, after ("ninety-six") insert ("and on the 15th day of April one thousand eight hundred and ninety-seven").
  Page 55, line 31, after ("the") insert ("persons who are at the passing of this Act").
  Line 34, after ("qualification") insert ("as if the term of office for which they were elected expired on that: day, and except for the purpose of tilling casual vacancies, no further elections shall be held").
  *LORD BALFOUR OK BIRLEIGHmoved, in page 55, line 37, to leave out Sub-Section (9).
  Motion agreed to.
  On the Million of the Lord CHAN-CELLOR the following Amendment was agreed to: —
  In page 56 line 3, at end of clause, insert as a, separate sub-section ("The Overseers of any parish divided by this Act shall, until the first appointment of Overseers next after the appointed day, continue in office as it they were Overseers of each part of the said parish, which, by reason of such division, becomes a separate parish").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 74 (Power of County Council to remove difficulties).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the object of all his Amendments were to carry out previous decisions of the Committee.
  Amendments moved,
  In page 56, line 6, leave out from ("Guardians"') to ("or") in line 8.
  Line 9, leave out from ("Guardians") to the first ("or") in line 10.
  Line 12, leave out ("or Local Board or Vestry").
  Line 13, leave out from ("constituted") to ("the") in line 15.

  195
  Line 18, leave out from ("Guardians") to ("and") in line 19.—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.")
  Amendments agreed to.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  At end of clause insert, as a new sub-section—"The Local Government Board shall make Regulations for expediting and simplifying the procedure under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, in all cases in the year 1891, for the purpose of bringing this Act into immediate operation, and such Regulations may dispense with the final approval of an Order by the County Council in cases where the prescribed notice of the proposed Order has been given before it is made by the County Council."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 75 (Existing officers).
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, that at the end of the first line of Sub-section (1) it was provided that whore the powers and duties of any authority other than Justices were transferred the authorities were to receive compensation. Ho wanted to ask why the Clerks of Justices were left out in the event of any of the duties which they discharge being transferred?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): The Justices arc gone.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, if they were not wholly gone it was proper that the interests of their servants should be looked after. The Clerks to the Justices ought not to be left out in the cold.
  THE MARCHESS OF RIPONsaid, he would consider the question.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  In page 56, lines 36 and 37, transpose ("then notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Act") to follow ("parish") in line 37.
  Page 57, line 10, after ("value") insert ("at the commencement of the local financial year next after the passing of this Act").
  Line 12, after ("repealed") insert ("as from the appointed day").
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, a similar point to what he had just raised arose on Sub-section 5 of t he clause. Clerks to highway districts were apprehensive that their interests were not sufficiently protected.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the point should be looked into.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 57, line 21, after the word ("fund") insert the words ("and any expenses incurred by any other authority in pursuance of this section shall be paid out of the fund applicable to payment of the salary of the offices affected").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 76 (Provision as to highways).
  LORD BELPERsaid, the clause did not appear to give power directly to the District Council to repair road and so on.
  He therefore moved—
  In page 57, line 29, after the word ("district,") to insert the words ("and failing such highways being placed in proper repair to the satisfaction of the District Council, the District Council may themselves place the highways in proper repair").
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 77 (Duty of County Council to bring Act into operation), agreed to.
  Clause 78 (Appointed day).
  The following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 58, line 38, after ("day") insert ("or respective days").
  Line 39, after ("Act"), insert ("or such prior day as may be necessary for the purpose of giving notices, or doing other acts preliminary to such elections").
  Line 40, after ("Act"), insert ("or other matters not specifically mentioned").
  Page 59, line 15, at end of clause insert ("Provided that, where an Order of a County Council postpones the operation of the section with respect to highways as respects their county, or any part thereof, the day on which such postponement ccases shall, as respects such county or part, be the appointed day").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 79 (Current rates, &c.)
  The following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 59, line 15, after ("passed"), insert ("but at such dates after the appointed day as the Local Government Board may fix").
  Line 15, after ("every"), insert ("authority, committee, or")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 80 (Saving for existing securities and discharge of debts).
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, The following Amendments were agreed to:—
  Page 59, line 36, after ("Council") insert ("or parish meeting").
  Line 39, after ("Council"), insert ("or parish meeting").
  Line 40, after ("Council"), insert ("or parish meeting").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 81 (Saving for existing byelaws) agreed to.
  Clause 82 (Saving for pending contracts, &c.)
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:—
  In page 60, line Hi. after ("Council") insert ("or parish meeting").
  Line 21, after ("Council") insert ("or parish meeting").
  Line 27, after ("Council") insert ("or parish meeting").
  Line 28,after("Council") insert ("or parish meeting").
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 83 (Repeal of Acts) agreed to.

  SCHEDULES.
  First, Schedule.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBEKLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 61, lines 6 and 7, leave out ("either in March or April") and insert ("on the twenty-fifth day of March in each year or within seven days before or after that day").
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he thought it as well to do all they could in the Act to help and support the authority as chairman of these thousands of new meetings and Councils, which would possibly at first ho in very inexperienced, though generally well-meaning, hands. He therefore moved the following Rule as an Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  After Rule (4), page 61, insert new Rule—("No person who is not at the time a qualified parochial elector may take any part or speak at any parish meeting").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid he was afraid the Rule might prevent a candidate presenting himself at one of these meetings and being questioned, and he thought that would be rather hard.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought there might be great contention at some of these meetings, and the management and control of such meetings would not be it trifling matter to the inexperienced men who not improbably would be called upon to preside over these village or small parish meetings.
  THE EAKL OF KIMBERLEYthought the chairman of any parish meeting would have entire power to rule out of order any person speaking if they were not qualified to attend the meeting.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: You are creating about 13,000 or 14,000 new assemblies where many people will be perfectly inexperienced. It would be better to give directions. I will put at the end of my Amendment "except in the case of a candidate."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that Clause 37 provided that no person not on the Register should attend or vote.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYthought it better to have Rules which could be always before the people.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: But there is a direct prohibition in the Act against anybody voting or attending.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBY: The Act will not be always before and in the memory of the chairman: the Rules for meetings, I imagine, he will always have before him. I think it is provided by the Act that the public may always attend.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The public cannot speak or take part in the meeting. A gentleman admitted as a spectator into the Gallery of this House is not taking part in the meeting. I think the noble Earl's Amendment is not necessary.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: The next Amendment is meant its another help to the chairman, and also to provide for publicity of voting by a show of hands in the first instance.
  Amendment moved,
  After Rule (5) insert new Rule:—"The voting in the first instance shall be by show of hands, but any parochial elector may demand that the names of those voting should be taken down, and such names shall be recorded in the minutes."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was absolutely contradictory to the whole

  199
  policy of the ballot and the principle of the Bill that names should be taken down. A show of hands could be taken and the matter was decided without any poll. If anyone demanded a poll it must he in accordance with the ballot.
  *THE EARL OF HARROWBY: The poll is only demanded under the Act after a public vote at the meeting. My Amendment only goes to provide how that public vote should be taken, and that an official record of the names of those voting should be preserved. Of course, it is open to any reporter present to record and publish the names. I propose the Amendment so far as "show of hands."
  Amendment negatived.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, line 2, of page 62, allowed any elector to demand a poll for the information or dissolution of a School Board. He had no objection to the parish meeting having the decision of such points, but it was carrying the matter rather far to allow a single elector to force a poll upon the parish. A poll was not very easily taken. It should be only at the instance of either the chairman of the parish meeting, of five joined in the demand. On Report ho should like to move the omission of Sub-section (a) on page 62, line 2.
  LORD BELPERremarked that it was rather a strong thing for one elector to be able to demand a poll.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could not say at that moment that he was willing to insert a, provision that there should be a demand by five electors, but he would before the Report stage consider whether there should be some alteration as regarded the one elector.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas in favour of the right rev. Prelate's opinion on the subject of the formation or dissolution of a School Board, He was quite sure that no parish would vote in favour of a School Board, and many parishes would vote for its dissolution.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHsaid, he should not have put the next Amendment down, but for the extraordinary wording of Rule 10. That Rule made provision supposing the chairman of a parish meeting was present and should be unwilling to take the chair. He could not imagine an occasion
  200
  when the chairman being present would be unwilling to take the chair.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 62, after line 22, insert new Rule—"The chairman of any Parish Council or parish meeting may declare any meeting adjourned it in his opinion the proper conduct of the business is rendered impossible by persistent disregard of the ruling of the chair."—(The Lord Clifford of Chudlcigh.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that there were cases where the chairman would be disqualified from taking the chair. He thought it would be rather a serious thing to put it in the power of a chairman to be able to declare at any moment the meeting at an end. The Parish Councils were substitutes for Vestries.
  *LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: If the noble Earl assures me that the chairman leaving the chair will bring the meeting to an end, then I am satisfied.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I am by no means certain that his leaving the chair would dissolve the meeting.
  Amendment negatived.
  On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 62, line 22, to insert"(11.) Any notice required to be given to or served en a parish meeting may be given to or served on the chairman of the parish meeting."
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule.
  On the Motion of the Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH, the following Amendment was agreed to:—In page 66, leave out lines 26 to 37 inclusive.
  On the Motion of the Earl CADOGAN, The following Amendment was agreed to:—In page 66, leave out lines 47 and 48.
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to he received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 296.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.