REPORT.

HL Deb 12 February 1894 vol 21 cc218-76

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1, page 2, line 3, leave out ("to be").

Clause 3, page 2, line 29, leave out ("chosen") and insert ("elected").

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

moved an Amendment providing that the Parish Councillors in a rural parish should be chosen from among such of the parochial electors, or those who had during the whole of the 12 months preceding the election resided in the parish "as are personally rated to the poor rate." The object of his Amendment was to ensure that those who represented the parish on its Council should, at all events, bear their share in the expenditure which the Council imposed upon the parish. Before giving reasons for the Amendment he asked their Lordships' permission to add, after "Overseers" in the last line of it, words from the corresponding section of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882— And paying or tendering the full amount (if any) then remaining unpaid of the poor rate last made in respect of the property. If the House approved of the addition of Lord Winchilsea's Amendment to this, he would offer no objection. Many of their Lordships had felt great difficulties arising out of the absence from the Bill of any security that those to whom the power of raising and spending rates was given should themselves be directly liable to the payment of those rates. He would not enter into a disquisition upon the relation of rates to rents. Theoretically, of course, it was in the power of landlords to readjust from time to time the rents of small tenants as rates increased, but few good landlords would do so without pressing necessity, or at all events, without some change in the tenancy. Some might use the power, but the majority would use it with great reluctance. It was an unfounded assumption, in point of fact, that the rates, however they might be increased, would be added to the rent. As a general rule, they would not. Any wholesale disturbance of compounding arrangements would not only occasion inconvenience in collection, but would disturb the existing relations between smaller tenants and their landlords—a most undesirable thing. On the other hand, had the House excluded all who were not directly rated for parochial purposes they would have been landed in another set of serious difficulties. They had passed one Amendment which was thought by some to be beyond their legitimate power, and could not, there- fore, confidently be reckoned upon as likely to be retained, that the rates raised under this Act for parochial purposes should be levied specially, and should not be part of the poor rate. Even if retained, however, that would be but a very limited security. In the first place, it would not apply to rates under the adoptive Acts; and, secondly, this special rate would have nothing to do with the poor rate. But in the operation of the Act as regarded District Councils the poor rate was the most important matter to be considered. Nothing, therefore, had been done towards making it a condition of the exercise of the electoral power in parishes that the electors should be directly rated to the poor rate. The addition their Lordships had made to the Bill preventing the transfer to the Parish Councils of the power of rating owners instead of occupiers would merely prevent the extension, compulsorily, of the existing state of things; it would not operate in regard to powers of compounding already exercised. A great blot would remain in the Bill unless something were done to obtain some security against so dangerous and unprecedented a power as that of taxation by those who did not themselves pay; but the principle would be saved and security practically obtained without either limiting the electoral franchise in parishes or interfering with the compounding system, if it were provided that the persons elected to these bodies, and having the raising and control of rates, should themselves be personally rated to the poor rate. That was his proposal; it would interfere with no existing arrangements, would create no friction between landlord and tenant, and would not silence the voice in parish meeting or in elections of a single inhabitant of the parish; while it would ensure that those who imposed the rates and spent the money should themselves have an equal interest with the other ratepayers in what they were doing, and should bear their own proportionate share of the burden they were imposing on others. It would be a security against reckless extravagance, while not operating against just, reasonable, and beneficial expenditure. The greatest objection seemed to be that, if external pressure were brought to bear upon these bodies, it might not be a sufficient security; but probably in the very great majority of rural parishes, the Parish Councils, District Councils, and Boards of Guardians would be trusted by those who elected them to use properly the power in their hands. He could not see any reasonable objection in principle to the proposal, especially accompanied by the power of anyone to qualify himself by giving notice, and paying up any arrear of rates.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 30, after the word ("among") to insert the words ("such of"), after the word ("parish") to insert the words ("as are personally rated to the poor rate"), and after the word ("persons") to insert the words ("so rated"). Line 35, after ("fifteen") to add ("Provided that any occupier of rateable property within the parish may, notwithstanding anything in the Poor Kate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, contained or done under that Act, claim to be personally rated in respect of such property, and every occupier giving notice in writing of such claim to the Overseers and paying or tendering the full amount (if any) then remaining unpaid of the poor rate last made in respect of the property, shall be rated accordingly").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

My noble and learned Friend will probably have anticipated that I am not able to agree to the proposal, which would limit in a very invidious way the rights of the electors constituted under the Bill. It would exclude all those persons who are residents and not ratepayers who get votes under the Bill, and all those who are electors by virtue of the Parliamentary franchise and are not ratepayers. Anyone, therefore, occupying in a tenement house a separate room would require to have it rated, and would be involved in the difficulty which I do not think even the ingenuity of my noble and learned Friend himself would be able to solve—that of contracting to pay the rate for six months for premises held on a weekly tenancy. Many agricultural labourers hold on tenancies at a mouth's notice. Those are only some of the inconveniences which would arise. You cannot touch the system of compounding at any point (unless you abolish it altogether) without meeting difficulties with regard to different liabilities and the position of the various persons affected. The Amendment would do a considerable amount of damage to the Bill, and would create a large amount of dissatisfaction, to obtain a result which, I think, would be extremely small in regard to the expenditure of the parish. I do not believe that each person will have to pay in addition for the rates, but that there will be a readiness to consider the general interests of the parish; and that while by this provision you would cause great discontent you would not secure any real economy in the expenditure of the money.

LORD BELPER

said, that he had considerable sympathy with the desire to make the electors sensible of the result of expenditure by securing that those who had the power of rating should themselves be rated; but there were practical objections to the noble Earl's proposal. In small parishes the effect of it would be to exclude men whom it was most desirable to have upon the Council—the manager of works or the bailiff of a farm—who would come under the service franchise, and who would be most valuable in parish work. He could not, therefore, support the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I do not think the objection which has just been stated is one that will be much felt in practice, because it would be very easy for the owners of houses of that kind to be placed on the rate book if necessary — if the owner desired to be a member of the Parish Council. The noble Earl the Leader of the House has stated a number of objections of detail. But to any proposal that could be made upon this complex subject of compounding many such objections could be urged. The noble Earl did not meet the broad argument that the Bill is placing in the hands of those who are not ratepayers the power of taxing those who are. The noble Earl did not see what a violent departure from the policy which has hitherto been pursued by Parliament is involved in that principle. I fear that the result in some parts of the country would be great expenditure and great injustice. I do not regard Lord Selborne's proposal as complete and adequate, but it gives something in the nature of a security to those who desire that the people who fix the rate should have something of their own at risk— some interest in economy. Even that slender security the Leader of the House would sweep away on mere grounds of petty detail. It seems as though the Government were anxious that those who are not interested in economy should have the absolute decision as to expenditure. I can only regret that the Government have taken this view. It will seriously injure the operation of the Bill, and it will produce a serious struggle in many parts of the country. Without saying that I find in the present proposal any substitute for those larger proposals which it has been necessary to abandon, I still think there is sufficient value in it to induce me to say that if my noble and learned Friend presses the Amendment to a Division, I shall give him my hearty support.

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 84; Not-Contents 42.

Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

moved to insert, at the end of the Earl of Selborne's Amendment, a proviso that any person so claiming should be entitled, so long as ho should continue to be personally rated, to deduct in each year from the rent payable by him in respect of such property an amount equal to the average annual rates levied upon such property during the three years preceding the making of such claim, and for any period less than a year in proportion. It was unnecessary for him to say much in support of it after what the noble and learned Lord had said. Parliament could enforce no absolute security that the landlord should reduce the rent which his tenant should pay. Still, this proviso would give some security, because it- would enable the tenant to deduct in every case from the rent which he owed to the landlord a sum equal to the annual rates on the property averaged by the preceding three years. When the ratepayer decided to take upon himself the duties of public life, he would he entitled upon paying his rates to make that deduction. He would not express an opinion upon the Amendment their Lordships had just accepted; hut having listened to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, he thought it advisable this proviso should be inserted to make the intention plain.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 35, at end of Earl of Selborne's Amendments, to insert ("Provided also that any person so claiming shall be entitled, so long as he shall continue to be personally rated, to deduct in each year from the rent payable by him in respect of such property, an amount equal to the average annual rates levied upon such property during the three years preceding the making of such claim, and for any period less than a year in proportion").—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)

*THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he really must protest against the insertion of this Amendment, because the noble Lord appeared to argue from false premises that in all cases the rent charged by the landlord covered the rate. That was not so. Supposing he let cottages at 1s. a week, and the tenants were to deduct from that the amount of the rate, how much would ho be likely to get for his rent? Very little—indeed hardly anything. It would be very unjust to insert this Amendment, and would offer a premium to landlords to raise the rent of their cottages, a proceeding which nobody would wish to see encouraged.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, the Amendment illustrated the difficulty of dealing with the matter in the way in which their Lordships had just done. The rent paid at the present time was rent in which the rates were included; but the result would be that the occupier, whose rent now included the rates, would only enjoy his full rights under this Bill by paying the rates in addition to his rent.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4 (Use of schoolroom).

LORD CLINTON

moved to omit the word "public" in the phrase "any suitable public room." He explained that his object was to limit as much as possible the compulsory use of schoolrooms, because the moving of furniture and other necessary preparations for meetings would occasion great wear and tear in the case of such rooms, for which the managers would receive no compensation. In many places there were rooms in Town Halls and other buildings which, although not public in the sense in which that word was used in the clause, were admirably suited for parish and Council meetings. It was difficult to understand why any suitable room should not be used. As a right rev. Prelate had pointed out the other night, schoolrooms were now constantly required even after school hours for educational purposes, as Evening Continuation Schools and for the instruction of pupil teachers. Consequently, they were seldom available for other purposes. It was not in the interest of the children that crowded meetings should he hold in the schoolrooms at night, attended by people who would have to come through muddy country lanes; and he would ask their Lordships to consider what the condition of the schools would be with regard to cleanliness and ventilation the next morning.

Amendment moved, in page 3, line 31, to leave out the word ("public").—(The Lord Clinton.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he did not know whether it would recommend the wording of this clause to their Lordships were he to state that this word was introduced at the suggestion of a distinguished Member of the late Government in the other House, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach. The noble Lord seemed to him to be far too anxious to limit the use of these schoolrooms. Though he was not desirous of again repeating what had already been urged, and seemed to be very disagreeable to some Members of the House—namely, that these schools could not be regarded simply as private schools - he must again say that it was absolutely impossible that schools which were largely supported now out of the Public Exchequer—however the buildings might have been erected—should be looked upon as simply private property. Such buildings, being largely State supported, might reasonably be regarded as quasi-public buildings. He thought that the result of the word being omitted would be to limit the use of the schools, and, therefore, he could not consent to its omission.

*THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said, neither of the previous speeches had gone to the Amendment as he understood it. As he understood the Amendment, it did not apply to the school at all, but to the room, if there was any other suitable for the purpose, whether public or private; and, so far from limiting the use of the schools, the Amendment, in his judgment, enlarged the scope of the clause. He really could not understand the objection, for the word "public" seemed to be quite useless.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he did not see that the Amendment would accomplish anything, or make any practical difference. Supposing the owner of a private house were willing to allow a meeting to be held there, it would be for the Parish Council to decide whether that was suitable or not. The clause as it stood merely authorised the Parish Council, if they thought right, to claim the use of the schoolroom when another room was not to be obtained free of charge.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

hoped their Lordships would adopt this Amendment. In a parish he knew two rooms were available, which were excluded by the clause as it stood. One was in a house which had formerly been a public-house and was now closed; the other was a reading or recreation room, which was private property.

On Question, whether ("public") shall stand part of the Bill? their Lordships divided: — Contents 54; Not-Contents 61.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 (Transfer of certain powers of Vestry and other authorities to Parish Council).

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

moved to insert after "charities" the words "or constituted by any special trust." He should not have thought this necessary, but for the exception of ecclesiastical charities. The intention of the clause was simply to transfer certain official duties, powers, and liabilities of Churchwardens to the Parish Councils, and with that intention it was not necessary to interfere, affairs of the Church and ecclesiastical charities being excluded. In Clause 15, dealing with funds of which parish officers were trustees, their Lordships had struck out the words which, in the Bill as introduced, were applicable to Churchwardens. The fact of the introduction of that special clause plainly showed that the sixth clause was only intended by the framers of the Bill to refer to the legal and official duties of Churchwardens as such, and not as trustees. If it was seriously urged that special trusts vested in Churchwardens ought to be transferred, it could not be in the manner of this clause, by which the Parish Council, as a Corporation, would take the place of the Churchwardens. What he now proposed was consistent with what had been done in Committee.

Amendment moved, In page 5, line 23, after the word ("charities") to insert the words ("or are constituted by any special trust").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

inquired whether it was intended by this Amendment to provide that Churchwardens should continue to be trustees of purely secular charities? It might be that the noble and learned Earl was quite right in thinking it was merely consequential upon another Amendment already made. He did not see why, with regard to these trusts, Churchwardens, who had no more to do with them than anyone else, should continue to be trustees. He could not see why in cases of feual allotment under the Enclosure Acts Churchwardens should remain the trustees. His impression was there were many cases of that kind. It was, however, very difficult to follow the exact effect of the Amendment. If the noble and learned Earl thought such a case as he had mentioned would be a special trust, it would certainly make a large inroad into the Bill.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, that such cases of property vested under Acts of Parliament in Churchwardens and Overseers, only, were already dealt with by Clause 5.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, he was doubtful whether, for the purposes of the noble and learned Earl, the words would be necessary —whether the powers and duties of the Churchwardens to transfer would include the execution of instruments dealing with the trust vested in the Churchwardens.

Amendment agreed to.

Verbal Amendments.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Clause 7, page 7, line 26, leave out the word ("in") and insert the words ("for the whole or part of").

Clause 8 (Additional powers of Parish Councils).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment in this clause at lines 35 and 36 was in consequence of a promise given to the noble Marquess opposite, that Her Majesty's Government would consider the retention of the words "other public purposes." It was thought they were too wide, and therefore he moved, To leave out the words ("other public-purposes") and insert the words ("for any purposes connected with parish business or with the powers or duties of the Parish Council or parish meeting").

Amendment agreed to.

*LORD DE RAMSEY

said, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for the Colonies had promised before the Report stage to look into the point as to the insertion after "Corporation" of the words "navigation or Land Drainage Authority." He hoped the noble-Marquess would be able to agree to that, Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he-had looked into the matter, and was advised that the words "Corporation and persons" covered the whole ground-Any bodies interested in the matter must be either one or the other within the meaning of the Act, and, consequently, the Amendment was unnecessary.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

said, as he had not expected to be in the House that day, he had asked his noble Friend Lord Onslow to undertake to look after his-Amendment to insert words providing that in the matter of water supply the Parish Councils shall be subject do such restrictions as is by Section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, imposed on a Local Authority. It was thought desirable that these Parish, Councils should not become traders ins water and rivals of the Water Companies. There appeared to be no question of principle involved: it was simply whether the Bill was so drawn as to give effect to the views which had been expressed by the Government in reference-to the position of the Provincial Water Companies, who thought there was a danger in the Bill of Parish Councils, being allowed to set up rival water works where Provincial Companies were able and willing to furnish a supply. A distinct assurance had been given by the Government that that was not their desire—and they believed the Bill carried out that intention—that the Parish Councils should become traders in regard to water supply where Water Companies existed. That, however, had not been considered satisfactory, and an opinion had been obtained from counsel (Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C.) who said that Haying read the clause in the Bill, and the shorthand notes of the proceedings in the House upon the Amendment of Lord Wemyss, notwithstanding Lord Ripon's assurance that the Government had not the least desire to confer powers upon Parish Councils to execute waterworks, it did constitute them bodies for carrying out such works. and he said, therefore, that some further Amendment was necessary. Under those circumstances, the Government being anxious to protect these Provincial Water Companies, could not reasonably object to the insertion of words giving them the protection asked for, which it was necessary they should have. He therefore moved the Amendment standing in Lord On slow's name.

Amendment moved, In page 8, line 18, after the word ("person") to insert the words ("and subject to such restriction as is by Section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, imposed on a Local Authority").—(The Earl of Wemyss.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said that, according to the view of the Government, the Bill did not authorise the Parish Councils to execute waterworks. Under the Public Health Act, if Rural Sanitary Authorities proposed to execute waterworks they were to give notice to any existing Water Company. No doubt the Water Companies were very tenacious of their rights, and exceedingly anxious that nobody should be able to utilise any water supply but themselves. It would, however, be carrying things to an absurd excess to say that a Parish Council should not have power to bring water from a stream to a tank without being exposed to opposition by a Water Company. No doubt counsel who were consulted would advise that the companies should be on the safe side, but any fears on that score were quite unfounded. Under the Bill a company would have all the right to redress that it now had if it were interfered with. The Bill, there- fore, was sufficiently fenced to prevent any injury to Water Companies; but to insert this Amendment would be to interpose a quite unnecessary barrier which would very much hamper the Parish Councils.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, that a Parish Council ought not to be allowed to constitute itself a Water Authority to compete with an existing company; and he hoped the noble Earl would persevere with the Amendment. The word "rights" referred not to the rights of the company, but to the preceding words "spring or springs," which were not exclusive as regarded the supply of water. Parish Councils ought not to be allowed to give a supply where the authority empowered was able and willing to do so. It was distinctly understood in Committee that Her Majesty's Government would make that quite clear.

LORD HALSBURY

believed it was at his instance that the words were altered. "Right" being thought too narrow the letter "s" was added. One of two things was manifest: either the Government intended to protect the practical monopoly of the Water Company in the district or it did not. If it did, the words as they stood were insufficient and the companies were not protected, because although they had a practical monopoly they might have no absolute right to a monopoly. Even with the added "s" the company would: have no such right; and if there was to be any protection given at all, it must be by some such words as the noble Lord suggested. Although it might be right to say a Parish Council should not be precluded from taking water from a well or small stream, and were obliged to adopt a cumbrous procedure, if they did so, different language should have been used, if it were intended to give them the power of making a reservoir or powers of distribution. The word "rights" did not protect the practical monopoly of the Water Companies at all.

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY,

as connected with a parish where there was a very inadequate water supply, said he felt very strongly on this subject; and he trusted their Lordships would in no way restrict the powers of Parish Coun- cils to provide parishioners with good water.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, that no works which were likely to interfere with a Water Company could be made except by a capital expenditure which could only be raised by a loan; but, on the other hand, a good deal might be done by the parishes in a small way without raising a loan, and such matters nobody would wish to see interfered with.

On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 65.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF DENBIGH

moved to amend the 2nd sub-section, which says that if a Parish Council are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms suitable land "for any purpose for which they are authorised to acquire it" they may refer the case to the County Council, by striking out the words quoted and substituting "for public offices or for allotments." He said, the Amendment was designed to protect tenant farmers, whose interests appeared to be overlooked by the Government. If it were adopted their Lordships would no doubt be told this was only another instance of the way in which they had all along been protecting their own interests alone. The worst of it was, so many people treated every landowner as an enemy if he was unfortunate enough to be a Lord. The noble Earl opposite had assumed that in no case would unreasonable demands be made by Parish Councils. Speaking from his own experience, he had always found the labourers reasonable enough; but, in view of the fact that numbers of persons were openly avowing that they would endeavour to get the best land, tenant-farmers viewed the subject with the gravest apprehension. No doubt in many villages throughout the country great expectations had been raised by such speeches as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered "with great heart and small responsibility." They had heard a great deal about agricultural depression, and the supporters of noble Lords opposite were always saying that this arose not from foreign competition, but from the fear which tenants had of being turned out by their landlords. They were always told that if only this security could be given, two blades of grass would be made to grow where only one grew before, and that fields of golden grain would be seen all over Essex. Whereas at present good cultivation gave good security, under this Bill good cultivation would only cause a man's land to be all the more coveted by his neighbours. He had, therefore, put down this Amendment with the view of doing away with the feeling of insecurity which now existed in the minds of the tenant-farmers.

Amendment moved, In page 9, line 27, to leave out from the word ("for") to the word ("they") in line 28, and insert the words ("public offices or for allotments").—(The Earl of Denbigh,)

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, the only comment he would make on the Amendment was that it did not go quite far enough. He had put down a similar Amendment with regard to hiring land for the purpose of allotments. Throughout the whole discussion in Committee it was assumed that the land was required for that purpose only, and no mention was made of public walks, or building, or any of the other purposes for which laud could be acquired. In confining the compulsory acquisition of land to allotment purposes, the House would, therefore, only be carrying out the intention of the Bill. It would be recognised by everybody that compulsory powers of purchasing and hiring land should be confined to matters of national importance. If land were required for erecting public offices, buildings, and so on, there would certainly be no difficulty in acquiring it by agreement.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would regret very much seeing the provision as to acquiring land for recreation grounds and public walks struck out of the Bill. It might not be a matter of very great importance, but most persons would consider it an extremely desirable object to encourage by every possible means. With regard to limitation, he understood the noble Earl to wish to limit the allotments to one acre.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

was simply desirous of limiting the amounts of land which could be acquired by a parish to allotments as proposed in thus Bill.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, in that case the amount practically would be reduced to the recreation grounds and public walks, and he had said nearly all he had to say upon that subject.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, his impression was that their Lordships should provide for security in this matter by ensuring supervision in the taking of land. If proper precaution were taken it was difficult to see why acquiring land by a parish for recreation purposes should not be treated as of as much importance as any other.

Amendment negatived.

*THE EARL OF MORLEY

moved a series of new sub-sections in reference to procedure. In moving those Amendments he begged to disclaim any intention of discussing the policy of the clause facilitating the acquisition of land by Parish Councils for the purpose of allotments. His sole object was to suggest machinery which would, ho believed, prove a good deal cheaper and more rapid in its operation than that which was provided by the Bill as it now stood. Before coming to his own Amendment he would call attention to the present position. As introduced, the Bill provided that the Parish Councils were to move the District, Councils; the District Councils were then to apply to the Local Government Board, who, after inquiry, were to make an Order which was not to require confirmation by Parliament. As their Lordships had altered the Bill, the County Councils had been substituted for the District Councils, which, in his view, was a considerable improvement; and, further, the Provisional Order of the Local Government Board was to be subject to a confirming Act. The objections to the two schemes were, shortly, these: To the procedure, as introduced, the objections were threefold—firstly, the substitution of the District Council for the County Council in respect of allotments; secondly, that the principle of the Lands Act was infringed, under which it was laid down that no laud should be compulsorily acquired without the sanction of Parliament—the cases were trifling in which an exception to that principle had been made—and the third objection was that the final decision was left in the hands of a purely Government Department, without any provision as to how the appeal from the District Council—for it amounted to an appeal— should be heard. There was no provision for a public inquiry. The objections to the second plan were largely on account of the delay, and still more on the ground of expense. He confessed that he entirely sympathised with these objections. He had a very strong feeling that the treble inquiry—first, by the County County Council; secondly, by the Local Government Board; and thirdly, in cases of opposition, by Parliament—would, in the case of opposition, be so expensive that in trifling cases it would be out of the question. He desired to make a few remarks as to the expenses in cases of Provisional Orders, thinking as he did that there was a good deal of misapprehension on this score. In the first place, he would point out that Provisional Orders cost the promoters nothing whatever for fees, no House fees being charged on these Orders. In the ease of an opposition, the promoters were charged with no fees, but the opponents were charged the same fees as were required from the promoters of Private Bills. As one concrete case was worth a great deal of theory, he had caused several cases of Provisional Order Bills to be looked up, and ho found that in throe typical cases of a simple character the expenses were represented by the following figures:—(1) £29, of which £1 14s. were Parliamentary expenses; (2) £39 odd, of which £62s.6d. were Parliamentary expenses; (3) £36, of which £3 18s. were Parliamentary expenses. He was informed the Local Government Board charged nothing for printing or preparing these Orders. The Board of Trade made a small charge. His experience had led him to the belief that where there was no opposition the expense of obtaining a Provisional Order was trifling, but that in cases which were opposed the expenses were very large and were out of all proportion to the importance of the matters involved. No doubt it rested with the persons interested themselves to regulate the amount of the expenses incurred in opposed inquiries; and if they chose to engage the highest intellects at the Bar and the most skilled engineers, he did not see how Parliament could interfere to prevent their doing so. The Bill, as brought into that House, provided for Local Government inquiries in all cases, whether opposed or not, and to the expenses so caused would now he added the expenses of a Parliamentary inquiry in opposed cases, and those expenses would be heavy. In view of this state of things, he had ventured to place upon their Lordships' Paper a series of Amendments, which would have the effect of enabling the compulsory powers conferred by the clause to he exercised as rapidly and as cheaply as possible, while securing the holding of a public inquiry by an absolute impartial tribunal in the case of injustice or wrong being done. By his proposal the Parish Council were to take the initiative, and they would have to go to the County Council, who would have power to make an Order authorising the Parish Council to purchase or take the land in question. The County Council would cause a copy of any Order so made to be served on the persons interested, together with a statement that the Order would become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament unless within a certain limited period a Memorial should be presented to the Local Government Board praying that the Order should not become law without confirmation by Parliament. The Order sealed by the County Council would be deposited with the Local Government Board, which would have to inquire only whether the Regulations had been complied with; and if they were satisfied that that had been done, and if no Memorial had been presented, the Board might confirm the Order, which would thereupon become final, and have the force of an Act of Parliament. In the case of no opposition it seemed impossible to devise a more rapid method. The Local Government Board was eliminated, the County Council were asked to give their Order, and the thing was done. In the case of opposition, his Amendments prescribed that it should be the duty of the Local Government Board, as at present, to place their Orders in a Confirmation Bill to be presented to Parliament. He admitted that must involve some little delay, but did not see how that was to be avoided under any conditions. But as to expense, he hoped the provisions he had added, which were really the whole kernal of his scheme, would, to a large extent, mitigate the heavy expenses which Parliamentary inquiries were supposed to involved. In the case of a Memorial being presented and a certain sum of money deposited by the opponent, the Local Government Board was to submit the Order to Parliament for confirmation, and every County Council Orders Confirmation Bill was, after the Second Reading of the House in which it originated, to he referred to a Select Committee of both Houses, or, if the two Houses of Parliament should think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee or a Standing Joint Committee of both Houses. He had some doubt whether it was fitting to introduce such a proposal in the Statute, but he found a very similar proposal in the Railway and Canals Traffic Act, 1888, with the one difference that the Standing Joint Committee was not there introduced. It was, of course, impossible to fetter Parliament, and Parliament would act as it liked in the matter; but he hoped that a Joint Committee would be appointed to which Bills of this description could be referred. Such a tribunal, being of a quasi-permanent character, would be very valuable indeed, not merely with regard to these allotment questions, but to many others. Its decision would have a uniformity which Committees appointed ad hoc had not always; and a body of precedents would be formed which would be of great use on many subjects besides those dealt with in this Bill. Then whatever the Committee might be to which the Bill was referred, he proposed an unusual clause, which he believed was without precedent—that before the Committee no counsel should be heard, and only one expert witness on either side. He could not see that this proposal for eliminating the very large amount of scientific evidence sometimes called before Committees would involve injustice to any of the parties interested. The procedure he had sketched out would he more rapid, and much cheaper, not only than that now proposed by the Bill, but than that which was provided by the measure as it came from the House of Commons. He further provided that the costs should be at the decision of the Committee. If he might venture to forecast the probabilities of the case, he should say that opposition to the Orders of the County Council was likely to be raised in but very few instances; but in these cases it was necessary to have compulsory powers, and to be able to exercise them in case a refractory or unreasonable owner or occupier had to be dealt with. At the same time, though by his scheme that power was retained, no principle of the Lands Clauses Act was infringed, and persons interested retained their privilege of appealing to Parliament to decide between them and those promoting Bills against them. Finally—and this was a point of some little importance—more responsibility was given to the County Councils — a responsibility which he thought they could very properly and justly bear. It would not be right for a moment for a Local Body, even so responsible as a County Council, to be able to act without any power of revision over them, though that power should be seldom exercised. As far as increasing the responsibility of the County Councils went, this was a distinct advantage and a distinct advance in the way of local government. This scheme was really farther reaching than the scheme in the Bill as it had been brought up; it was capable of large extension, and if it found favour with their Lordships, it might be a valuable means of cheapening and simplifying the procedure in simple cases, which at present necessitated inquiries much too complicated and expensive, and to this he attached the greatest importance.

Amendments moved, In page 9, line 29. after the word ("representation") to insert as a new sub-section— ("(3.) Before making any such representation the Parish Council shall, in the prescribed manner, give notice to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the land which they propose to take, and such land shall be defined in the representation by reference to a twenty-five-inch ordnance map"). Page 9, line 32, after ("inquiry") insert ("made after service of the prescribed notices on the owners, lessees, and occupiers of the lands proposed to be taken"). Page 9, line 37, leave out from ("they") to ("(a.)") in page 10, line 3, and insert ("may make an Order enabling the Parish Council to purchase and take the land or any part of the land defined in the representation or (in a case to which the Allotments Act, 1887, applies) in the Petition. (4.) The County Council shall cause a copy of any Order so made to be served in the manner and on the persons in which and on whom notices in respect of the lands to be taken are required to be served, together with a statement that the Order will become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament unless within the prescribed period a Memorial shall be presented to the Local Government Board, praying that the Order shall not become law without confirmation by Parliament. (5.) The Order sealed by the County Council shall be deposited with the Local Government Board, who shall inquire whether the Regulations hereinafter mentioned have been in all respects complied with; and if the Board shall be satisfied that this has been done, then—

1. "(a.) If no Memorial has been presented, the Board shall confirm the Order, and, upon such confirmation, the Order shall become final and have the effect of an Act of Parliament:
2. "(b.) If a Memorial has been presented, together with a deposit of the prescribed amount (being such an amount only as will, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, be sufficient to cover the expenses of the confirmation of the Order by Parliament if no further step is taken in the opposition), the Local Government Board shall submit the Order to Parliament for confirmation.

(6.) Every County Council Orders Confirmation Bill shall, after the Second Reading in the House in which it originates, be referred to a Select Committee, or, if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order, to a Joint Committee, or a Standing Joint Committee of such Houses. (7.) If, before the expiration of seven days after the Second Reading of any Confirmation Bill in the House in which it originates, a Petition is presented against any Order comprised therein, the Petitioner shall be allowed to appear and oppose by himself, his agents, and witnesses; but the Select Committee, or the Joint Committee, as the case may be, shall not hear counsel, nor more than one expert witness on either side. (8.) The Committee by a majority may award costs, which shall, unless the Committee otherwise direct, include all costs from the date of the representation by the Palish Council, and may direct the return of the deposit, or any part of it, if they think fit. (9.) In any Order made by a County Council under this section for the purpose of the purchase of land otherwise than by agreement the Lands Clauses Acts shall be incorporated, but any question of disputed compensation shall be dealt with in the manner provided by Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, and provisos (a), (A), and (c) of Sub-section (4) of that section are incorporated with this section and shall apply accordingly. (10.) Sub-sections (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 1887, and Section 11 of that Act, except the proviso to Sub-section 2, are incorporated with this section, and shall apply accordingly with the following modifications: 'an Order' shall be substituted for 'a Provisional Order,' 'Parish Council 'shall be substituted for 'Sanitary Authority,' and 'County Council' shall be substituted for 'County Authority.' (11.) In this and the following section 'prescribed' means prescribed by Regulations of the Local Government Board, and such Regulations shall include forms of Orders, Notices, and other documents for the purposes of proceedings under this section. (12.) Sub-sections 3 and 4 of Section 52 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890, shall be applicable to such Regulations as if the same were Regulations made under the powers of that section").—(The Chairman of Committees [The Earl of Morley.])

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, he had an Amendment which the acceptance of those of Lord Morley would render inoperative. The House might congratulate itself on the care and success with which the noble Earl had approached a very difficult problem; and if the House should decide that Parliament was to be the ultimate tribunal, there could be no more satisfactory plan of giving effect to that decision than that proposed by the noble Earl. But he hoped to persuade their Lordships that it was possible to dispense with Parliament as an ultimate tribunal. The weak point of the proposal was that it did not perfectly meet the great objection which had been made on the score of expense. The number of successful applications under this section would greatly depend on whether the ultimate tribunal were cheap or not. He was glad to find that his Amendment met with the approval of the noble and learned Earl. As a Court of First Instance the County Council was a stronger body than, and should be substituted for, the District Council, a new body which was too closely connected with the Poor Law Board of Guardians to make it a perfect tribunal in this matter. He quite admitted that in the case of an Unopposed Order there was no expense. It was in opposed cases that the question of expense had to be considered, even with the novel restrictions which the noble Earl proposed—that no counsel should be heard, and not more than one expert witness called on either side. Appeal was only to be made in cases of unreasonable refusal on the part of landowners to give the public what was fair and right in any particular case. Would it not be possible for the Government to accept the County Council as the first tribunal instead of the District Council; and could not the Leader of the Opposition, having secured the interposition of a Public Body so much stronger and more trustworthy, dispense with the assent of Parliament? The inquiries which under the Bill were to be held by the County Council might be ordered to be held publicly, and then there would probably be few appeals, and such appeals as there were might be left to the Local Government Board. The President of that Department was directly responsible to Parliament; his decisions could be challenged in various ways, and as much publicity would be given to them as if they were the decisions of Parliament. Questions might be put to him which he would be bound to answer, or his action might be challenged by a Vote on the Estimates to reduce his salary, or a private Member might put down a Motion in reference to his procedure. The challenge might be made as effective upon any decision the Local Government Board was likely to give, as could be the case in an appeal to Parliament. That was the narrow issue. As the Bill originally stood, the Local Government Board was to move in the matter, to decide it upon the ipse dixit of their own Inspector. It became a widely different case when the County Council was substituted. If the County Council,were accepted by Government, the Local Government Board might be safely accepted by the noble Marquess.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, that he greatly preferred the proposal of the Chairman of Committees to that of which he had given notice; and, therefore, he should not move the Amendments standing in his name.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the statement which had been made by the Chairman of Committees was very clear and able, and the House was indebted to him for his proposal. But he was bound to say that the Government felt very great objections to these matters coming before Parliament at all. He thought that the reduction of expense which the noble Earl justly desired to effect would not be so easily accomplished. The whole atmosphere of a Parliamentary inquiry was that of spending money. When witnesses had been brought up, and when gentlemen, who would not be called counsel, but who would he practically counsel, had been heard on either side, the Bill would be a considerable one. Again, he was unwilling to set such a narrow limit to the power of parties to put their case before Parliament. Generally, no doubt, the questions would not be of very great-importance; but it was impossible to say that there would not be some which involved important principles. To absolutely limit each party to one expert witness and to forbid them to employ counsel was a very strong measure. Without binding himself to the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Win-chilsea, he preferred it, on the whole, to that submitted by the Chairman of Committees, as it was more in accordance with the principles of the Bill. In some past cases the expenses of a Parliamentary inquiry had been enormous. There was one notable instance—the celebrated St. Faith's allotment case—in which the charges amounted to more than £100 an acre. He need not tell their Lordships that that price was practically prohibitive, and the effect upon everybody concerned, whether they desired allotments or had to do with the machinery of the Act, was to render it perfectly useless.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, there was a local inquiry in that case.

THE EARL OF KIMBEELEY

said, that reminded him of another subject— inquiries by the Local Government Board. The whole difficulty in these small matters was that they did not admit of considerable expense, and if loaded with too much expense the object in view was defeated. In Local Government Board inquiries matters involving great pecuniary interest to the parties had to be dealt with, and people had to go to considerable expense in getting their cases determined. He felt a rooted objection to these cases going to Parliament, and for that reason was unable to regard the Amendment favourably.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, the clause proposed with so much ability by the noble Earl was a clause of limitation. He was bound to say that the Amendment of the noble Earl was one which those who thought as he himself did on this matter could safely accept. No doubt it did to some extent limit the powers of the litigants to place their case before the Committee, but that was compensated for by the very great advantage of having Parliament as the last Court of Appeal in all cases of acquiring land. The noble Earl the Leader of the House made a very just observation—that the majority of these cases were very unimportant, but that did not ex- clude the possibility of cases of considerable importance arising. In the same way he should say, with respect to the interests that were concerned, that in a great number of cases it was possible that no very important interests would be concerned; but there would be cases where farmers who were occupiers would have taken from them, or would be threatened with the loss of, land which was essential to the working of their farms. Though that might not be carried out in many cases, the fact that such a thing could be done, the fact that farmers who might be on bad terms with their labourers would often have such things threatened, would seriously interfere with their confidence in the cultivation of their land, and would consequently interfere with the application of capital to the land, and the land might be expected to be less efficiently cultivated in consequence. He did not much believe in the idea concerning the difference in the comparative expense of an appeal to Parliament and an appeal to the local tribunal. It was really a question whether counsel and agents should go down from London to the provinces or whether witnesses should come up to London. On the whole, he suspected that going down to the provinces would be found to be the more expensive performance of the two. But that was on the assumption, which he held to be indispensable, that there was a hearing upon which reliance could be placed—a hearing before a competent tribunal, before a tribunal which was independent, and which sat in open Court, so that the whole proceedings might be subject to the action of public opinion. If they did not have that it would be the greatest tyranny to take men's land from them and to turn farmers out of the occupation which they held. If they did have inquiries before Inspectors of the Local Government Board he believed the expenses of such a proceeding would be as great as the expenses before a Parliamentary Committee, and it would not create anything like the same confidence. Farmers and proprietors had been accustomed to look to Parliament for the protection of their rights in the pursuit of their industry, and to substitute the uncorrected decision of a State Department would create the greatest apprehension and discontent. His noble Friend Lord Winchilsea seemed to think that the power of appeal to Parliament against the decision of the Local Government Board would be a sufficient protection. What power of appeal to Parliament existed? What chance was there of getting a majority of the other House on a Motion for Adjournment as to the disposal of a certain quantity of land? Above all, what power was there of reversing a decision once solemnly given which by Act of Parliament was then the law? That would be a decision which could not possibly be reversed. His noble Friend Lord Winchilsea had an Amendment on the Paper which seemed to him to be very much worse than that before the House. It provided that the sole inquiry was to be by the County Council. But were County Councils bodies that were fitted to hold public inquiries? Had they machinery for so doing? No doubt machinery might be created, but still a County Council was not a body eminently fitted for the purpose. Although he recognised the general capacity and impartiality of the County Councils and their desire to administer justice, he doubted very much their competence in urban counties to discharge these duties. In essentially rural counties no doubt they would be competent, but there were many counties in which the urban element largely existed, and where the majority of the Councillors could not have the knowledge sufficient to enable them to judge whether a farm would or would not be ruined by the withdrawal from cultivation of certain fields. He therefore thought the County Councils were not the proper bodies to deal with these appeals. There must be an appeal to a tribunal which would inspire confidence, and there was no appeal that would be satisfactory except an appeal to Parliament. He considered that the Earl of Morley by his proposal had effectively removed the only possible objection that could be raised against a Parliamentary tribunal.

*LORD THRING,

having had considerable experience in these matters, invited the noble Marquess opposite, in reference to his remarks about tenant-farmers, to go into the country and see what a Provisional Order would be able to do? The successful man was the man who had a long purse. The idea of a Provisional Order being an adequate appeal was a mere delusion. Provisional Orders caused the greatest oppression, and nobody without a long purse could go through with them. It was absolute mockery to tell a poor man to go to Parliament, for the expense might amount to hundreds or thousands of pounds. The only tribunal which would do the poor man justice, and which was fitted to deal with these matters, was the County Council. A man could go before the County Council and could be heard. In the County of Surrey there were always members of the County Council who were acquainted with the locality and were ready to go down and try cases; they had a fellow-feeling with the poor man and knew what he wanted. A local tribunal of that sort was worth all the official inquiries that could be held. He was extremely sorry he could not agree with his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees; and he would say that if their Lordships wanted to do justice to the peasant, the tenant, and the owner alike, they should provide a tribunal before which those persons could be heard. All the efforts of the Chairman of Committees could not make the procedure of a Parliamentary inquiry cheap.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, the only point really in issue was whether the appeals should be dealt with by a Local Government or by a Parliamentary inquiry? In his opinion, a Parliamentary inquiry was likely to decide great legal questions of principle better than a Local Government Board inquiry. He did not believe that there would be any great demand for the compulsory powers, because he had every confidence that there would be a willingness on the part of landowners to meet the requirements of the parish. He should be very sorry that the compulsory acquisition of land should be interfered with by any indirect methods, and made impossible on the score of expense. Whatever Rules their Lordships chose to make, well and good, but they should avoid hampering the matter by piling up expenses. He was convinced the noble Earl was offering them a cheaper plan, on the whole, than had yet been put forward. It was throwing an enormous responsibility on the County Council, and if the Amendment was adopted their Lordships would have to lay clown definite Rules as to how the inquiry by the County Council was to be conducted. With reference to the numbers and constitution of the body of Commissioners, he suggested that the County Council should have the power of demanding from the Board of Agriculture the assistance of an agricultural assessor to help them. He thought that the proposal of the noble Earl not only retained the great principle that Parliament in the ultimate resort should, if necessary, give its assent to the taking of a man's property compulsorily, but offered to the country districts by far the cheapest and most economical means of giving effect to such a decision.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

could not agree with the view that the proposal of the noble Earl would be more economical than the rival plan of consideration of the matter by the Local Government Board after the County Council had made its inquiry. Let Parliamentary Committees be fettered in whatever manner as regarded calling expert witnesses and employing counsel the process of inquiry by Committees of both Houses of Parliament could not be otherwise than expensive; and the proposal was no more to the interests of the landowner than it was to the interests of those who desired to see allotment schemes carried out. It had been assumed that after the County Council bad made its inquiry, and if any question as to the propriety of its decision in taking a particular piece of land was raised, it would be necessary for the Local Government Board to send down an Inspector and institute a new inquiry in every case. Possibly there might be cases where that would have to be done, but they would be the exception. When, however, a question had been dealt with by the County Council there might often remain some matter of controversy quite unsuitable for the Joint Committee proposed by the noble Earl, but which might well be brought before the Local Government Board and determined by the Department with satisfaction to all parties. It was assumed also that the landowners in these cases would always be desirous to come before a Joint Committee of Parliament; but, on the other hand, he maintained that there were many cases where they would not be altogether satisfied with the decision of the County Council and would desire to see some possibility of reviewing it, though they might not think the matter worth the expense which would be involved in coining before a Joint Committee of both Houses. Would it not be better, therefore, in the vast number of cases that owners, as well as those who desired allotments, should be provided with a much cheaper means of having the decision of the County Council on certain questions reconsidered in preference to the manner which was here proposed? Their Lordships would be more likely to allow more complete justice to be done and more complete satisfaction to be given, and at much less expense, by the method proposed by the Government than by the proposal of the noble Earl.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, as he understood from the statement of the Lord Chancellor, the Government proposal was of a somewhat more alarming and doubtful character than he had originally taken it to be. He understood that under the proposal of the Government the Local Government Board would not necessarily hold a local inquiry at all, but would confirm or reject a decision by the Local Authority upon its own responsibility without making any inquiry into the matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

said, it would not be necessary in every case to make such an inquiry. Very often those who complained against or questioned what the County Council did would be content to have the subject reconsidered by the Local Government Board without any inquiry upon the representations made to them.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE

said, that though he did not attach the same importance as some noble Lords did to the particular tribunal which was to have the decision in this matter; though he did not care very much whether a Committee of both Houses, or a Government Department, or a Committee of the Privy Council was responsible, he did think that it was of the utmost importance that there should be secured a public inquiry of some sort before an adequate tribunal. He thought that their Lordships were indebted to the Chairman of Committees for having brought forward so clearly the proposal now being considered. The authority of the Chairman of Committees was quite as great as that of the Lord Chancellor; and it appeared to him to be a moot question whether an inquiry, limited as the noble Earl proposed, would be more expensive than an inquiry which he thought ought to be held, at all events locally, in the manner in which their Lordships had understood it was going to be held. It had been said by the Lord President of the Council, and he thought the view was assented to by the noble Marquess opposite, that some of these cases might not be of very great importance. No doubt the question might not be of the highest importance with reference to the value and the amount of the property concerned, or the area of the district affected; but to those who were affected his opinion was that it would be almost invariably a question of the highest importance. The subject appeared to be looked upon as one affecting only the owner of the land, the occupier, and the labourers who desired to obtain allotments. But in his judgment the general body of labourers were a fourth party, who had quite as much interest in the equitable settlement of these questions as any of the other parties. The owner and the occupier might obtain, and probably would, adequate compensation; but if an erroneous decision was arrived at, farms would be deprived of portions of land which were absolutely necessary to the proper cultivation of the holding, and a farm might go out of cultivation or fall into the hands of a man with less capital, to the disadvantage of the interests of every labourer in the parish to a far greater extent than any labourer could be benefited by giving facilities in obtaining allotments. In whatever shape it was provided, he thought it was absolutely necessary that there should be an open public inquiry before an adequate tribunal in the interests of those who were directly, as well as indirectly, interested.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

explained that he did not suggest the Government were proposing any scheme which was different from that which was in the Bill as originally brought before their Lordships; but it did not follow that in every case there would be an inquiry involving expense of the nature to which his noble Friend had alluded.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the intention was, and he believed it was the invariable practice of the Local Government Board, not to decide in such matters without holding a local inquiry.

*THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

said, if the contention of the noble Earl was correct— that, as a rule, the inquiry would be held on the spot—then the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack fell to the ground, because the noble Lord was bent on proving that the appeal to the Local Government Board would be cheaper than the appeal to the Parliamentary tribunal suggested by the noble Earl at the Table. But that could only be in the case suggested by the noble and learned Lord, where the appeal to the Local Government Board would be heard in London and not taken down to the country to be tried. If the noble Earl was rightly understood as saying that that would be a rare exception, and that the general rule was to have local inquiries conducted on the spot by the Local Government Board, the argument of superior cheapness put forward by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack completely fell to the ground.

On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents 108; Not-Contents 25.

Verbal Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved to insert after "sections" the word "two," making the section read— And thereupon Sections 2, 3. and 11 of that Act (the Allotments Act of 1887) shall apply. For "Sanitary Authority" in the Act "Parish Council" would be substituted. The House would observe that in this clause the Government omitted to include Section 2 of the Act of 1887, which was a very important section. It was as follows:— A Sanitary Authority shall not, under this Act, acquire land for allotments save at such price or rent that in the opinion of the Sanitary Authority all expenses, except such expenses as are incurred in making roads to be used by the public, incurred by the Sanitary Authority in acquiring the land and otherwise in relation to the allotments may reasonably be expected to-be recouped out of the rents obtained in respect thereof. Now, the results of leaving it out was that there was no restraint whatever on the requirement of land by the Parish Councils, whether by compulsion or agreement. In fact, there would be no limit whatever except that which would be supplied by the financial limitations to which they were subject. It seemed that that this was not fair to the Parish Councils or the ratepayers, especially at the beginning of the administration of such a law as this, when they must expect many mistakes and unwise calculations, and especially a good deal of unreasonable enthusiasm. Under the clause the Parish Council would have the power of acquiring as much laud as it pleased, and it would not be in the least bound to consider whether it would get the interest on the money back in the shape of rent. In the same way, it would have the power of hiring as much land as it pleased without any expectation of being able to recoup itself out of the rents. Laud would be thus acquired at the expense of the rates, and let out, at the lowest value to those who would hold the allotments. That seemed to be a remarkable power. It was a form of outdoor relief of a most dangerous character, and it might be expected to create considerable abuse. As the clause stood, a Parish Council would have the right to take land at a considerable price, and charge that price on the rates, and then let it out to allotment-holders without taking any security that the rent payable to the landowners would be re-imbursed. This possibility might involve some parishes in serious financial embarrassment. There was nothing in the Bill to say that the land must not be acquired unless it could be re-let at remunerative rents; and even if the objection were taken that the land could not be so relet, no authority appealed to was empowered to say that on that ground the land should not be acquired. The omission was no doubt unintentional, but it was exceedingly unwise. Parish Councils should not be encouraged to speculate in laud, though they should be encouraged to purchase or hire such land as they could let out to labourers at remunerative rates, and they should not be encouraged to do anything more. The Amendment, therefore, proposed the insertion of words naming the sub-section at the commencement of Sub-section 10 of the Amendment.

Amendment moved, In page 10, line 21, after the word ("way") to insert as a separate sub-section—"(e.) The words 'County Council' shall be substituted for the words 'Sanitary Authority' in the said sections of that Act").— (The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, Sub-section 2 of the Allotments Act would not apply at the place the noble Marquess proposed to put it in.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You can strike it out if you do not like it.

Amendment (The Earl of Morley,) as amended, agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

Does the noble Marquess move in page 10, line 1, after "sections," insert "two"?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF WLNCHILSEA

The object of my Amendment here is that Parish Councils shall be substituted for the Sanitary Authority.

Amendment moved, In page 10, line 2, after the word ("namely") to insert—

1. "(1.) The Parish Council shall be substituted for the Sanitary Authority;
2. "(2.) The Order shall be subject to confirmation by the Local Government Board, but shall not require confirmation by Parliament."— (The Earl of Winchilsea.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the object of the Amendment had already been accomplished.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

moved an Amendment, at page 10, line 3, to leave out ("(a.) Where the") and leave out ("is").

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

I do not quite see why the words "otherwise than by allotments" should be inserted here. Why should not the body who pays for the allotments have them?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that by the scheme of the Bill as it stood the allotments were vested in the District Councils.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

That has now been altered. Is it proposed that, the property should vest in the County-Councils?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Yes.

THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

Then I move to omit these words, because I do not see why the Parish Councils who pay for the allotments should not have them.

Amendment moved, In page 10, line 3, to leave out the words ("otherwise than for allotments").—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 10, lines 5 and 6, to leave out Paragraph (b).

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, he attached great importance to the next Amendment. The only question was whether it was entirely covered by the Amendment which the noble Marquess had inserted in Sub-section 10 of the Earl of Morley's. The object of his present Amendment was to provide for those cases which might often happen, where no decrease of rent would compensate the tenant-farmer for the severance of a particular piece of land from his farm. There were cases in which a single field was indispensable to the successful cultivation of a farm, and to take it away from the farm would ruin the farmer. A recent applicant for one of his farms made it a condition that a certain piece of meadow land should go with it. Soon afterwards some of his (Lord Winchilsea's) own labourers requiring an extension of allotments asked for that very piece of land. When he stated the facts to them, they said they would not press for that field; but there was no security that a Parish Council would always be so reasonable. He asked for this provision not only in the interests of the occupiers, but also in the interests of the vast majority of the labourers themselves. There were cases in which the tenant-farmer might not find out until a year afterwards that he could not make his farm pay without the meadow laud, and he might then throw up the farm. If 200 acres of arable laud went out of cultivation, about eight agricultural labourers would be thrown out of employment.

Amendment moved, In page 11, line 4, after the word ("inquiry") to insert the words ("provided that where it shall be proved, at the holding of such inquiry that the withdrawal of any particular piece of land from a holding would depreciate the letting value of the remainder thereof to an extent not likely to be covered by a reasonable sum for severance or increased rent, such land shall not be included in any Order made in pursuance of this section)".—(The Earl of Winchilsea)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought this matter was sufficiently provided for by the general provisions of the Bill. It was distinctly a matter which would have to be taken into consideration by those who would have to determine whether or not these purchases should be made, and he thought limitations such as the noble Earl proposed would be inconvenient. If it could be shown that injurious results would flow from the taking of the land that would be one of the strongest arguments to be put before the tribunal. Unless they distrusted the bodies who would have to decide whether the land should be taken or not there was no reason why these limitations should be put in.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following words were added to Subsection 7:— And for the purposes of this Act those sections shall be read as if the words 'County Council' were substituted for 'County Authority,' and the word 'provisional' were omitted before the word 'Order.'

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

moved an Amendment to Sub-section 8 by adding thereto the words— But such compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act (England), 1883. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the compensation for depreciation at the end of a tenancy created by compulsory hiring should be assessed by the arbitrator in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1883.

Amendment moved, In page 12, line 27, after the word ("depreciation") to insert the words ("but such compensation shall be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act (England), 1883").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of MORLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Page 12, line 31, leave out ("Local Government Board") and insert ("County Council"). Leave out Section 10.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

With reference to the discussion we had the other night as to what was under the land could be said to he on the laud, the Lord Chancellor was much puzzled by the question. Gravel, sand, and clay, are the things about which the doubt exists, and whether they are minerals or not, I am told, is a moot point amongst lawyers. I think it should be clear that the allotment-holder cannot carry away any brick, sand, gravel, or clay found on the allotment.

Amendment moved, In page 12, line 39,after the word ("include") to insert the words ("any gravel, sand, or clay, or").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it was quite reasonable there should be some restriction with regard to gravel and sand. But with regard to clay, or, as it was called, brick-earth, he had some doubt.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Whatever it is, the allotment-holder cannot carry it away. He has only to use it for the purpose of producing vegetables.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)

suggested that the words should be altered to "right of carrying away," &c.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

"Right of carrying away" will satisfy me perfectly.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Clay is made into bricks, and when it is made into bricks would it be an infringement of the clause to carry away those bricks? In my part of the country we build to a very considerable extent with what are called "clay lumps"—namely, clay dried in the sun. In many cases it is a very valuable tiling, and it is extremely likely that they would be used for that purpose, and I suppose it would be held that the clay not-having been burned could not be carried away.

LORD BELPER

Is not lime quite as important? Would the noble Marquess object to putting in lime?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

You do not usually find lime on allotments.

LORD BELPER

You would in some cases. I am afraid on some of my land there is a great deal.

Amendment amended, and agreed to.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

I think I should state that the words moved by Lord Onslow "that under such land, or surface minerals" were inserted in Committee. By a printer's error the words are left out of the Bill. The question is, whether those words should remain?

Words struck out.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

moved an Amendment to meet the case where land, having been acquired by the Parish Councils, might be required by the landlord to work the mines or minerals. It was a thing very likely to happen, and ought to be provided against. He proposed to give the landlord power to resume the land when it became necessary to work the minerals.

Amendment moved, In page 13, line 2, after (1892") insert as new sub-sections— (12.) If the land hired under this section shall at any time during the tenancy thereof by the Parish Council be required by the landlord for the purpose of working and getting the mines, minerals, or surface minerals thereunder, or for any road or work to be used in connection with such working or getting, it shall be lawful for the landlord of such land to resume possession thereof upon giving to the Parish Council 12 calendar months' previous notice in writing of his intention so to do, and upon such resumption the landlord shall pay to the Parish Council and to the allotment-holders of the land for the time being such sums by way of compensation for the loss of such land for the purposes of allotments as may be agreed upon by the landlord and the Parish Council, or in default of such agreement, as may be awarded by a single arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Allotments Act, 18S7, and the provisions of that section shall apply to such arbitrator. The word 'landlord' in this sub-section means the person for the time being entitled to receive the rent of the land hired by the Parish Council. (13.) All expenses properly incurred by a County Council in pursuance of a representation made by a Parish Council for the purposes of this section shall be defrayed in the manner provided in Section 9"—(The Earl of Dunraven.)

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I imagine the purpose of the noble Earl is to prevent the owner of minerals being excluded from working them during the period of a 14 or 21 years' lease?

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

Yes.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I have not had time to look at the exact words the noble Lord employs, but it seems to me only fair that something should be done.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

subsequently said, he would insert— If the land hired under this section shall at any time during the tenancy of the Parish Council be shown to the satisfaction of the County Council to be required by the landlord," &c.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Clause 11, page 13, line 25 after ("fund") insert ("and any Order made for that purpose shall be in the prescribed form").

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he attached considerable importance to the Amendment he was about to move. Some country parishes were paying very heavy rates now, and it was unwise to allow these very small Councils to impose a rate exceeding in any matter 3d. in the £1 upon any parish without first getting the consent of the parish meeting. They were dealing now with between 8,000 and 9,000 parishes having less than 500 inhabitants, and, therefore, these Councils would be very small. The five Councillors might be inexperienced as to rating matters.

Amendment moved, Leave out Sub-section (1) and insert new subsection—"(1.) Whenever the rates levied by a Parish Council after the passing of the Act for their expenses for any annual charge whether of principal or interest in respect of any loan, and for any expenses under any of the adoptive Acts adopted after the passing of this Act, amount collectively to a rate of 3d. in the £1, or would be increased to a charge in excess of 3d. in the £1 by any expense or liability proposed to be incurred by the Council of any parish, the Council shall not incur such expense or liability which would involve any such excess without the consent of a parish meeting, summoned after due public notice to the parish, of the expenditure proposed."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the clause as it stood limited the expenditure to a certain sum, but it left the power, no doubt, to incur further expenses under the adoptive Acts. He was not quite sure that there was any ambiguity in the words. But, apart from ambiguity, he certainly could not consent to the Amendment. It was undesirable to curtail the powers of the Parish Council, and compel them on every occasion to call a parish meeting. There was "no lack of public control in the matter. The procedure under the adoptive Acts-was prescribed in the Acts themselves. There was no necessity for this clause.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I sympathise with the view of my noble Friend. I would suggest to him that there is a doubt as to whether the Amendment would not come within Privilege.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

If legal advisers of this House consider this a Constitutional question, I should not think of pressing it. It is important that all our proceedings should be legal.

LORD HALSBURY

I cannot entertain a doubt that this encroaches on the Privileges of the Commons.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LORD BELPER

said, his Amendment was merely to put in the plural what was in the clause in the singular.

Amendment moved, In page 13, line 8, to leave out the words ("any expense or liability") and insert the words ("expenses or liabilities").—(The Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

could not see how these alterations affected the sense of the clause.

LORD BELPER

said, the object was to put it clearly that the expenses of the Parish Council altogether should not be more than a rate of 3d. in the £1 without the consent of the parish meeting.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

To say that the whole of their expenses and liabilities may not in any case exceed 3d. in the £1 without the consent of the parish meeting is against the Bill, be-cause there is a limit of 6d. I cannot understand why we should be so extraordinarily jealous of these people that they may not even spend 6d.

LORD BELPER

understood the clause to say that the Council might expend 6d. in the £1 for all purposes, but not more. He wanted to make it clear that they could not spend more than 3d. on any one purpose, and that all their expenses should not come to more than 3d. without their going to the parish meeting.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought the latter was the only sensible object to be aimed at by such a limitation. If they said the Parish Councils were not to incur more than 3d. in the £1 on any one subject, it could be easily avoided by their spending 2½d. on this and 2½d. on the other, until they would render the limitation perfectly nugatory. On the other hand, there was some sense in saying that they should not incur expenses which would exceed a rate of 3d. in the £1 on everything without the consent of the parish meeting.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he had a simple Amendment. He did not see why the parish meeting should be allowed to do this more than the Parish Council, and all he had done hero was to restrain the parish meeting as well as the Parish Council from putting on more parishes under the Compounding Act than were now under it. Obviously if the Parish Councils could not do it, the parish meeting should not.

Amendment moved, In page 14, line 31, after the word ("Council") to insert the words ("or parish meeting"). —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, he had now to fulfil an engagement which he made in Committee to move a subsection instead of that which had disappeared from the clause, now No. 15, to the effect that— In the case of any parochial charity (save as hereinafter provided) the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, and which is not an ecclesiastical charity, the Parish Council may, if it think fit, notwithstanding that the number of trustees may have been fixed by the instrument creating the charity, or by any scheme for its administration, or otherwise, appoint so many additional trustees, not exceeding the proportion hereinafter mentioned, as the Charity Commissioners shall approve; but the whole number of trustees who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Councilor parish meeting, shall not, by reason of such addition, exceed one-third of the whole body, including those so added; and if the management of any such charity is vested under the provisions of any such instrument or scheme, or otherwise, in a sole trustee, the number of trustees may, with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, be increased to three, one of whom may be nominated by such sole trustee and the other by the Parish Council. The Charity Commissioners may, by General Order, regulate the mode of carrying this subsection into effect. The noble and learned Lord said, that the Amendment agreed in substance with one of which notice was given in the House of Commons by the President of the Local Government Board; but it went rather further than that. Mr. Fowler's Amendment did not apply to charities where there was any representative element at all on the trust; but his Amendment took into account the existing representative element, and allowed it to be increased with the sanction of the Charity Commissioners. If their Lordships would hereafter permit him to move an Amendment, which was not down on the Paper, upon the 71st clause, it would be for the purpose of making it clear that he did not intend by the Amendment introduced into that Definition Clause to include cases which ought more properly fall within this l5th clause.

Amendment moved, In page 15, line 25, after Sub-section (2), add new sub-section—"In the case of any parochial charity (save as hereinafter provided) the benefits of which are confined solely to inhabitants of the parish, and which is not an ecclesiastical charity, the Parish Council may, if it think fit, notwithstanding that the number of trustees may have been fixed by the instrument creating the charity, or by any scheme for its administration, or otherwise, appoint so many additional trustees, not exceeding the proportion hereinafter mentioned, as the Charity Commissioners shall approve; but the whole number of trustees who are either elected by ratepayers or parochial electors or inhabitants of the parish, or appointed by the Parish Council or parish meeting, shall not, by reason of such addition, exceed one-third of the whole body, including those so added; and if the management of any such charity is vested under the provisions of any such instrument or scheme, or otherwise, in a sole trustee, the number of trustees may, with the approval of the Charity Commissioners, be increased to three, one of whom may be nominated by such sole trustee and the other by the Parish Council. The Charity Commissioners may, by General Order, regulate the mode of carrying this subsection into effect."—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

remarked that as there was now no reference in the Bill to elective trustees, he could at once say that this Amendment must be regarded as an improvement on the Bill as it stood, and so far he was glad to see it inserted. At the same time, he must guard himself against being considered to have accepted this as an adequate solution. Subject to this, he should not think it necessary to divide the House against the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

*THE EARL OF WINCHILSEA

said, his Amendment was not of a contentious character, and it had been so far agreed to that if it were possible to be put in the Government said they would have no objection to insert something of the kind. The objects of the Amendment were not of a controversial character; both sides of the House agreed they were just and right. He moved the Amendment in place of the right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who was not able to be present. Since the Amendment was moved in Committee one or two alterations had been made in it which had removed objections. The Amendment now was confined to dealing with "dole" charities. In the last Report of the Charity Commissioners words were found which expressed their deliberate view that on an application by the trustees they ought to sanction a scheme for the divergence of part or all the moneys so applied to the purposes mentioned in Sub-section (b) here. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the Charity Commissioners being put to the trouble in each case of granting a fresh scheme and to save the trustees the trouble of applying for such a scheme. He thought it well to leave it to the Charity Commissioners to prescribe the general conditions under which it might be done. What was proposed now was to lay down what might be done "subject to the general conditions which may be prescribed from time to time by the Charity Commissioners." Those who lived in the country knew well that the provision of qualified nurses to nurse the sick poor in their own homes was one of the most important of all the schemes which had been proposed having for their object the happiness and welfare of the working classes of the rural districts. He attached considerable importance to the word "qualified," and if the Government accepted the Amendment he would insert in the Definition Clause a definition of "quali- fied." It would not do to divert these moneys for the purpose of paying any-untrained nurse. The only doubt was whether the Amendment came within the scope of the Bill.

Amendment moved, In page 15, line 30, after the word ("Council") to insert as a new sub-section—"Where the endowment of a parochial charity is applicable wholly or partly m gifts in money or kind, the income so applicable, or any part thereof, may be applied (subject to general conditions to be prescribed from time to time by the Charity Commissioners) by the trustees or persons acting in the administration of the charity to one or both of the following purposes:

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

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, the Amendment did not come within the scope of the Bill, and he regretted, therefore, that the Government could not accept it. They had carefully considered the Amendment with the utmost desire to accept it.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Clause 19, page 19, line 23,after ("revoked") insert ("or varied").

THE EARL OF SELBOENE

said, he had an Amendment to Clause 20 to extend the same principle which the House had already accepted for the Parish Councillors to the members of the committee appointed where there was no Parish Council. These committees in smaller parishes would take the place of the Parish Councils, and it was desirable that the business should be transacted in similar manner to the Councils. He had another Amendment that, when their powers were enlarged, the County Council should be able to say that these powers should be exercised by the committee.

Amendment moved, In page 20, line 2, after the word ("approval") to add ("Provided, that the members of any committee so appointed shall be persons who, if there were a Parish Council in the parish, would be qualified under this Act to be members of the Parish Council").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I understand this to be consequential on the Amendment my noble and learned Friend carried in Committee?

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

In my own view it is.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

It applies the same rule with regard to the committee of the parish meeting as has been applied this evening with respect to the Parish Council. I object to both of them, but I do not think there is any clear distinction between the two, so I cannot trouble the House to divide against this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, his next Amendment seemed to him reasonable, and he should be surprised if the Government did not accept it.

Amendment moved, In line 41, after the word ("Act") to add the words ("and may, if they think fit, make it a condition, as to any such powers, that the same shall be exercised through a committee to be appointed by the parish meeting as hereinbefore provided").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

could not accept the Amendment, because it seemed to be an interference of a rather extraordinary nature with the liberty of action of these bodies. He could not see why there should be this minute interference.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Clause 21.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he was only carrying out a promise he had given when he moved to disqualify County Councillors within the Administrative County of London who were elected for any electoral division wholly or partly included in any Union under the jurisdiction of a Board of Guardians in such Administrative County from being by virtue of their office additional members of such Board.

Amendment moved, In page 21, line 17, after the word ("Guardians") to insert the words ("not being within the Administrative County of London.").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

remarked that this would produce the most anomalous state of things that could be conceived. The County Councillors were to serve upon these bodies, but now it appeared that in the County of London there was such an extraordinary distrust of the County Councillors that they were to be excluded. The Loudon County Council was not created by the present Government, but by the late Government, and it surprised him that the London County Council should bo singled out for this treatment. If their Lordships would insert this in the Bill he wished them joy of it.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved to insert, in line 18, the words "provided they consent to servo." The words had been accidentally omitted.

Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

moved to amend the clause so as to provide that a person should not be qualified to be elected or to be a Guardian for a Poor Law Union unless he was "personally rated to the poor rate."

Amendment moved, In page 21, line 24, after the word ("is") to insert the words ("personally rated to the poor rate, and is").—(The Earl of Selborne.')

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, this was an Amendment quite contrary to the arrangements made for the whole Bill, which do not impose qualifications upon District Councillors and members of Boards of Guardians. Was it to be said that members elected to Boards of Guardians were not to be trusted unless they paid their own rates? It was most likely these men would pay their own rates; but even if a few persons got on who did not pay their own rates, he thought the alarm which had been exhibited was exaggerated. He opposed this Amendment strongly.

On question? their Lordships divided:— Contents 42; Not-Contents 16.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following verbal alterations were made:— Clause 20, page 20, line 9, after ("Overseer") insert ("shall be transferred to and vest in the parish meeting"). Line 27, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"). Page 22, line 12, leave out ("consider as respects") and insert ("on the application of the Board of Guardians of"). Page 22, line 13, after ("county") insert (consider").

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

I have an Amendment to Clause 21. My object is to raise a discussion upon that vital question of the Poor Laws as suggested by this Bill. But it has been put to me that it would be more convenient if some Motion were made on the Third Reading instead of to-night. I therefore propose on the Third Reading to move the recommittal of the Bill for the purpose of reconsidering the Poor Law Clauses.

Clause 24.

THE EARL OF HAEBOWBY

moved— In page 24, line 16, after the word ("Councillors") to insert the words ("subject as hereinafter mentioned").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

It is consequential. I have no objection to it.

Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

said, he had a small Amendment of some importance. There should be some definition of highways brought into repair.

Amendment moved, In page 26, line 8, to leave out the words ("is not") and insert the words ("appears on the Report of a competent surveyor not to be"). —(The Lord Montagu of Beaulien.)

THE EARL OF KIMBEELEY

saw no objection to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Lord BELPER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In page 26, line 15, after the word ("contribution") to insert the words ("from the County Council").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the next Amendment was not an important matter, but it was exceedingly difficult to explain. The reason for the alteration was this: It was provided by Section 216 of the Public Health Act, 1875, that where part of a parish was included within an urban district and the excluded part was before the constitution of that parish liable to contribute to the highways for all the parish, the excluded part should, subject to certain exceptions, to be considered to continue as forming part of the urban district. Sub-section 4 of Clause 25 of this Bill, which was inserted by an hon. Member of the other House with special reference to Cheltenham, provided that the excluded part should go out of the highway district and revert to the rural district. But the clause would not provide for the interval between these two things. His Amendment was to make proper arrangements for the interval.

Amendment moved, In Clause 25, page 26, line 21, after the word ("highways") to insert the words ("but until the Council become the Highway Authority such excluded part of a parish shall continue subject to the said section").—(The Earl of Kimberley)

THE EARL OF MORLEY

suggested it would be more convenient to divide this clause. The first part related solely to highway powers and the latter to sanitary powers.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In Clause 26, page 28, at the end of the clause insert as a new sub-section:—"(7.) Nothing in this section shall prejudice any powers exer-ciseable by an Urban Sanitary Authority at the passing of this Act, and the Council of every county borough shall have the additional powers conferred on a District Council by this section. Clause 30, page 29, line 7, leave out ("in like manner as to an urban district"). Clause 32, page 29, line 17, leave out ("the") and insert ("any"). Page 29, same line, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"). Page 29, line 18, leave out ("the") and insert ("any"). Page 29, same line, leave out ("and") and insert ("or"). Page 29, line 23, after ("borough") insert ("including a county borough"). Page 29, at the end of the clause insert as a new sub-section—"(6.) An Order under this section, so far as it regards any charity, shall not have any effect until it has received the approval of the Charity Commissioners.

LORD BELPER

said, this clause was inserted on the Motion of Lord Norton, and proposed where there were separate areas, and the Rural Sanitary Authority district overlapped the county boundary, a certain portion of it should be made a separate area. The probability was that this piece cut off would not be made a separate area, but would be verged in some county; therefore, he thought the words "separated from the rest of the district" would be better. It was for the purpose of making the clause more operative.

Amendment moved, In page 31, line 2, to leave out the words ("made a separate area") and insert the words ("separated from the rest of the district").—(The Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The object will be met if the word "district" in the second line is substituted for "area."

LORD BELPER

objected and said, many of these places if they were left would not be made separate districts; they would be joined on to a portion of another county. The intention was that the sanitary area should not be divided if good reasons were shown against the division.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was unable to follow the objection of the noble Lord.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 35, page 31, lines7–9, leave out ("and where parishes are grouped for the purposes of this Act, the whole area under the jurisdiction of each Parish Council"). Page 31, line 33, 'after ("districts") insert ("and unless the County Council otherwise direct"). Page 33, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("appointed under Sub-section 10") and insert ("County Councils").

Clause 35.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

moved to insert as a new sub-section— Where an ecclesiastical parish, being a new ecclesiastical parish formed under the Church Building Acts, is situated wholly or partly within the boundary of a rural parish, it shall be lawful for any five parochial electors registered in such part of the Register hereinbefore mentioned as relates to such ecclesiastical parish to convene a meeting of such parochial electors in the manner prescribed by this Act for convening parish meetings, for the special purpose of ascertaining the opinion of such electors upon the question whether it is de-desirable that such ecclesiastical parish shall he created a separate rural parish under this Act, and if a resolution be passed at such meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting in favour of such ecclesiastical parish being created a separate rural parish under this Act, the person presiding at such meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the County Council shall take such resolution into consideration, and shall cause inquiries to be made and notices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and if satisfied that the proposal contained in such resolution is desirable, shall make such Orders as they deem most suitable for carrying such resolution into effect in accordance with the provisions of this section. He explained that his object was to remove anomalies in the old civil parishes by enabling the parochial electors to meet together and represent their case to the County Council. If the County Council was satisfied with the proposal, it might then constitute a separate parish. Many of these old civil parishes had been very much altered by the growth of population. At one end of a parish they might have a great railway town, a watering place, or a mining town grown up. According to the present arrangements these were all in the civil parish, but the populations were quite different in their habits. The associations of the rural parish were with the old rural parish, while the associations of the new railway town were with the railway interests. There were many counties in which great anomalies were created by this state of things under the old civil parish. He proposed by this Amendment that the parochial electors of any of these parishes should be able to meet together and represent their case to the County Council.

Amendment moved, In page 32, line 16, after Sub-section (7) insert new section—"Where an ecclesiastical parish, being a new ecclesiastical parish formed under the Church Building Acts, is situated wholly or partly within the boundary of a rural parish, it shall be lawful for any five parochial electors registered in such part of the Register hereinbefore mentioned as relates to such ecclesiastical parish, to convene a meeting of such parochial electors in the manner prescribed by this Act for convening parish meetings, for the special purpose of ascertaining the opinion of such electors upon the question whether it is desirable that such ecclesiastical parish shall be created a separate rural parish under this Act, and if a resolution be passed at such meeting by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting in favour of such ecclesiastical parish being created a separate rural parish under this Act, the person. presiding at such meeting shall forthwith transmit a copy of such resolution to the County Council, and the County Council shall take such resolution into consideration, and shall cause inquiries to be made and notices given in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the 'Local Government Act, 1888,' and if satisfied that the proposal contained in such resolution is desirable, shall make such Orders as they deem most suitable for carrying such resolution into effect in accordance with the provisions of this section."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)

*THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

said, that he generally had the satisfaction of finding himself in agreement with the noble Earl, but he must differ from him on this occasion. As he understood it, the principle of the Bill went rather in the opposite direction—towards the grouping of parishes, not the setting up of separate parishes. The Amendment would bring a good many persons who were not now under disabilities under fresh disabilities. Churchwardens in ecclesiastical parishes were not touched under the Bill as it stood; but if this Amendment were carried, they would be brought under such disabilities as there were in the Bill. He therefore had serious doubts as to the advisability of pressing the Amendment. In his opinion, it was no great objection to anything to say it was an anomaly. It should be shown that it was an anomaly that worked badly before it were abolished. Many of the most valuable things in the Constitution were anomalies.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he should be sorry to see any special provision of this kind put into the Bill. As regarded the power of dividing parishes, that existed under the Act of 1888, and the County Councils had full power to do that. They had avoided in the Bill dealing with these ecclesiastical parishes. If the Amendment were adopted it would stir up strife.

Amendment negatived.

LORD BELPER

said, he wanted to amend some words which he got introduced in Committee. He understood that the clause as it stood would cause considerable difficulty and delay in regard to this question. His intention was certainly not to cause delay. He only wished that the Council should have their views properly considered, and not he overruled by any formal procedure of the Joint Committee. If the Government would have consented to have moved any words with regard to the Joint Committee, he should have foregone his Amendment. He should propose that instead of the words previously used should be inserted— Any question arising as to the constitution or procedure of any such Joint Committee shall, if the County Councils concerned fail to agree, be determined by the Local Government Board. Of course, the County Councils might try to agree as to their procedure; but in this case the Local Government Board would ensure fairness being done, and every case properly considered.

Amendment moved, In page 33, line 5, to leave out from the word ("that") to end of Sub-section (11) and insert the words ("any question arising as to the constitution or procedure of any such Joint Committee shall, if the County Councils concerned fail to agree, be determined by the Local Government Board").—(The Lord Belper.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought the Amendment was an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.

On the Motion of Lord BELPER, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 33, line 12, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eleven").

On the Motion of the Earl of KIM-BERLEY, the following verbal Amendments were agreed to:— Clause 37, page 33, after line 37, insert as a fresh sub-section—"(2.) Where parishes are grouped 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 37, page 34, line 12, leave out ("the") before ("Parish Councils"). Clause 38, page 34, line 15, after ("having a") insert ("separate"). After Clause 40, insert as a new section—"When an Order under Section 57 of the Local Government Act, 1888, has been confirmed by the Local Government Board, such Order shall at the expiration of six months from that confirmation be presumed to have been duly made, and to be within the powers of that section, and no objection to the legality thereof shall be entertained in any legal proceeding whatever. Clause 42, page 36, after line 29, insert as a fresh sub-section—"(7.) Where the name of a person is entered both in the ownership list and in the occupation list of voters in the same parish, and the Revising Barrister places against that name a mark or note signifying that the name should be printed in division three of the lists, an asterisk or other mark shall be there printed against the name, and such person shall not be entitled to vote as a parochial elector in respect of that entry.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

said, that Clause 44 dealt with some special disqualifications, and at the end of it provided that where a member of a Council or Board of Guardians was by virtue of this section disqualified then the Council or Board was to declare the place vacant. There were other qualifications required, not only introduced by their Lordships' Amendment but by the Bill as it stood, and it was quite clear that if there was a disqualification under or in respect of one of those necessary qualifications the same rule should be applied, and the more so because the Bill very properly provided that proceedings of the Board were not to be vitiated by the disqualification of one member. He proposed in Sub-section (7), line 33, to omit the words ("by virtue of this section"), and to introduce the words ("or a District Councillor or a person elected as such"). He put the words "person elected as such," because strictly a person was not a "member" if not qualified. A District Councillor might, of course, vacate his seat by subsequent disqualification. He apprehended that he might attend the meetings of the District Council and not vacate that seat by absence, while he might lose the Guardianship. He thought it was well to mention the District Councillor and to make a disqualification apply to both qualifications.

Amendment moved, In line 33, Sub-section (7), omit ("by virtue of this section") and insert ("or a District Councillor or a person elected as such").— (The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

A member of a Board of Guardians under this Bill as such would not vacate his office by reason of absence. Every District Councillor is by virtue of that office a member of the Board of Guardians. Of course, if he vacates his membership of the Council by absence, he also vacates the Guardianship, because he could not be a member of the Board if he is not a member of the District Council. I do not think any Amendment is required; but if it is, the proposal of my noble and learned Friend can be put in on the Third Reading.

*THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If the District Councillor ought not to be mentioned in my noble Friend's opinion, of course I withdraw it, but I should have thought there could not be a difference of opinion that this sub-section, as well as the next, should extend to every disqualification.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

The matter is so technical and there are so-many clauses, I would rather the words were put down on the Notice Paper so that we can understand clearly where we are.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBERLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:— In Clause 44. page 37, line 28, after the word ("the") to insert the words ("Parish Council or district").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment to Clause 46 was a very necessary one. Its object was that the scale of expenses should be framed in time for the next election, and it provided that if at the beginning of the month before the next election the Council had not framed a, scale the Local Government Board should see to it.

Amendment moved, In Clause 46, page 41, to leave out all after the word ("Council") in line 24, to the end of the clause, and insert the words ("and if at the beginning of one month before the first election under this Act a County Council have not framed any such scale for their county, the Local Government Board may frame a scale for the county, and the scale so framed shall apply to the first election, and shall have effect as if it had been made by the County Council, but shall not be alterable until after the first election").—(The Earl of Kimberley.)

Amendment agreed to.

*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, he wished to move an Amendment after Clause 51. Under the present system of local government great abuses took place, and people were often assessed illegally. He had been informed that the President of the Local Government Board had admitted in another place that there were very great abuses, but Mr. Fowler did not say what remedies should be applied. Therefore, he offered their Lordships an Amendment framed by a friend and revised by a Queen's Counsel. As recently as the 8th instant there was reported in the newspapers a case where the Corporation of Canterbury had been guilty of illegal assessment, and a successful action brought against them in the County Court. If the Lord President could not see his way to accept this Amendment he would ask him for a promise that some remedy should be found, such as supporting the auditors, because at present the Local Government Board was constantly remitting their surcharges.

Amendment moved, In page 44, after Clause 51, to insert as new-clauses.—"51a. When any demand is made by a rate collector or other officer of a Local Authority for payment of any rate or contribution, or for reimbursement of expenses under any Act relating to public health, or to water supply, or to dwellings in an unsanitary condition, or to highways, or to public education, or under any other enactments relating to local government, and when any Order is made or notice is given by an Inspector of Nuisances or highway surveyor, or other officer of a Local Authority, requiring anything to be done or not to be done, under any such above-mentioned Acts or enactments, the demand note and Order, or notice of requirement, shall in every case specify on the face thereof the particular Council, Board, or other Local Authority from which such pecuniary demand or Order or requirement proceeds, and the Statute or Statutes, and section or sections of the same, and the local bye-law or bye-laws, if any, under which the pecuniary demand, or Order, or requirement is made. (1.) If any person shall object to comply with such pecuniary demand, Order, or requirement, and shall within a reasonable time make application to the County Court, stating the grounds of his objection, it shall be lawful for the Judge of the Court to inquire into the matter in a summary manner, and if he shall be of opinion that the pecuniary demand, or Order, or requirement objected to is illegal, or in excess of the statutory powers of the authority from which it proceeds, or an oppressive or excessive or frivolous and vexatious exercise of powers legally possessed, or materially erroneous in legal form, the said Judge shall issue an Order or Injunction directing the Local Authority or authorities and officer or officers concerned to desist from, or to postpone, or to vary such pecuniary demand, Order, or requirement as they may think just and proper. Such Order or Injunction of the County Court shall be subject to appeal, on a case to be stated by the Judge, to a Judge of the High Court, under Rules to be framed by the said last-mentioned Court, from time to time, and shall be in force and shall be obeyed by the Local Authorities and their officers until reversed or varied on such appeal. (2.) The Judge of the County Court, when he gives judgment on an application, shall award costs against the applicant if the decision is against him, and if the decision is in favour or partly in favour of the applicant, he shall award to him such sum, not exceeding £5, as he shall think just and proper, to be recovered from the Public Body or bodies or officer or officers responsible for costs and compensation for unwarranted interference with the applicant. No costs shall be awarded against the applicant on appeal if the decision of the County Court has been in his favour or partly in his favour. (3.) The costs of a Local Authority or of its officers, other than such costs as are awarded against and recovered from the applicant, shall be defrayed out of the county rate, or partly out of the said rate and partly out of the district poor rate, to such extent as the joint committee of County Councillors and Justices appointed under the Local Government Act, 1888, shall certify such mode of defraying the costs to be reasonable and proper. So far as such mode of defraying the costs shall not be so certified, the individuals responsible shall be liable to be surcharged with the amount of the same in the manner provided for by the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 265. (4.) Whenever an increase is made in the rateable valuation of any property assessed to local rates, the owner and occupier shall receive from the Assessing Authority notice of such increase and of the grounds on which it is made not less than 30 clear days before any rate founded on the increased valuation is demanded. Whenever a demand is made for payment of any rate the property rated shall be specified on the face of the demand-note by reference to its number on the tithe map of the parish, or by reference to a valuation list or other official record readily accessible to the ratepayers, and the rateable value assigned to it by the Assessing Authority shall likewise be stated on the same note. 51B. Nothing in the present Act shall affect the power vested in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction by other Acts to hear and determine informations and complaints in matters relating to local government; but such Courts shall, in doing so, take into consideration any past or pending proceeding in the County Court under the present Act, of which they may have notice, relating to the same matter as is then before them."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I can only give one answer to my noble Friend —namely, that his Amendment is entirely beyond the scope of the Bill, and, therefore, I should be quite wrong in occupying your Lordships' time in discussing it.

Amendment negatived.

On the Motion of the Earl of KIMBER-LEY, the following Amendments were agreed to:— In Clause 56, page 47, after line 9, to insert as a new sub-section—"(3.) The Local Government Board may, with respect to any audit to which this section applies, make Rules modifying the enactments as to publication of notice of the audit and of the abstract of accounts and the report of the auditor. Page 47, line 10, after ("may") insert ("at all reasonable times"). Page 47, line 14, after ("may") insert ("at all reasonable times").

On the Motion of Lord KNUTSFORD, the following Amendment was agreed to:— Page 49, line 12, after ("No") insert ("parish meeting or").

LORD BELPER

moved— In page 50, line 41, after the word ("elementary") to insert the words ("or other ").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, this Amendment was a very extensive one indeed. They had put in words which met the case of the British and foreign schools. To put in those words he did not know what the result would be.

LORD BELPER

said, he understood the Amendment to mean that no endowed school should come under the scope of the Bill as a parochial charity. He would move to put in the Definition Clause that parochial charities shall not apply to endowed schools. He understood there was no objection to the Amendment. If it was intended that other schools besides elementary schools were to come in as parochial charities that was certainly not what was understood in Committee. The reason he wanted to put in ("or other") was to cover a school which might be an endowed school and not an elementary school.

*THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I have never understood that endowed schools came under the scope of the Bill. There has never been any suggestion whatever for "other schools," and I do not think it is necessary.

LORD BELPER

I moved in Committee to insert in the Definition Clause that parochial charity shall not mean an endowed school. I understood the Lord President did not object to it, but that that clause was not the proper place to insert it. He said this was the proper place.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

I think the noble Lord is quite safe. There are no endowed schools vested in the parish. They would not come under the definition "endowed charity."

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

There seems to be no provision for preserving the rights of the clerks of Highway Boards, and my object is to provide for them.

Amendment moved, In line 24, after Sub-section (7), to insert— ("(8.) Where the powers and duties of Justices of the Peace are transferred by this Act to any Parish or District Council the clerk to the Justices holding office at the passing of this Act shall not suffer any pecuniary loss by diminution of fees or salary on account of such transfer").—(The Earl of Onslow.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was advised that under the law as it stood all officers whatsoever affected in this way were included, and if they had a claim they could prefer it. There was no necessity for any additional provisions on the subject.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

Does that apply also to Clerks to Justices?

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

Yes; certainly.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

First Schedule.

LORD BELPER

said, he did not think that one elector at a parish meeting should be able to demand a poll in a great number of cases. These cases were enumerated, and covered the whole ground of the matters which the Parish Council could deal with. Then it was prescribed that in other cases it would be necessary for five electors to demand a poll; but as the list for one elector exhausted all the matters the meeting could deal with, he could not see when five electors would be required. He wanted to make it clear that in all cases it would be necessary to have five electors to demand a poll. When a parish meeting-was held, and after a matter had been fully discussed and a vote taken on it, it was extraordinary that one cantankerous man should be able to get up and say—"I demand a poll." Then, on the demand of one man, the parish would be put to the trouble and expense of a poll. The only effect of his Amendment would be that in these particular cases, which were specified, the poll should be held only on the demand of five electors. He thought the Amendment, at all events, was a reasonable one, and he understood that the Government would not oppose it.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said,. by the present law any one ratepayer might demand a poll. This was a great protection to the ratepayers. Something might be done at the meeting which was extremely disagreeable to persons interested, but there might not be five persons ready to demand a poll at the meetings, which might be small; and the matter, if determined offhand, might eventually cause great inconvenience in the parish. If this power of demanding a poll were taken away, the result might be just what was not desired, and a decision might be come to, a sufficient number of persons having expressed an opinion upon it. It might be a question of expenditure which it might be desirable to avoid; and if the noble Lord would look into the matter he would, no doubt, come to the conclusion that it was safer to leave the words as they stood.

VISCOUNT CROSS

said, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl, speaking from his own personal experience. He thought this was certainly a safeguard.

THE DUKE OF RUTLAND

hoped the noble Lord would not divide the House upon this subject, because the Bill made quite sufficient alterations as it stood in the law of the land, and he should object to making another.

LORD BELPER

did not wish to make more alterations than might be considered desirable by the House generally, and, under the circumstances, he would withdraw the Amendment.

THE BISHOP OF SALISBURY

said, the school question had been very much left out of consideration. He had not the least wish to promote a general discussion upon it, but was glad to hear the Lord President say he wished to remove any cause of contention in parishes. There was no doubt that the school question was a popular one, and one upon which even the atmosphere of their Lordships' House was liable to get warm, as it was apt to cause a great deal of can tankerism on the part of single individuals. He thought it would be better to leave the matter under the ordinary law, five parsons being required to demand a poll.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the provision had at its back an authority which he was sure noble Lords opposite would treat with the respect with which it was regarded by himself. The provision was introduced at the instance of Mr. Balfour, who led the Opposition in the other House, his reason being that it was a very sound one, and exceedingly necessary in so important a matter as this. On a question of this kind, which really interested the whole parish, it should not be possible for the matter to be passed without a poll, if even one elector demanded it. It was a safeguard, and a wise one.

Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Bill to be read 3a To-morrow; and to be printed as amended. (No. 297.)

House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.