§ LORD BARNARDMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether the requirement that the consent of two or more justices must be obtained to certain rates now serves any useful purpose, and, if not, whether they will 338 take any steps to repeal such requirement. I may explain, for the information of those of your Lordships who are not familiar with this matter, that in rural townships and parishes the last proceeding after the poor-rate has been made, and before the rate can be collected, is that it requires to be allowed by two or more justices. I have not been able to discover what the origin of that allowance was, though I think it goes back to the year 1601. There was no doubt good reason at that date for this allowance being required, but I have been unable to ascertain that at the present time the proceeding is of any public utility what-ever. On the other hand, I am able to state that it is a matter of some slight expense to the ratepayers, and of very considerable inconvenience. I have before me a letter written by an assistant overseer in which he informs me that in his union it costs the ratepayers some £30 a year, because a fee has to be paid for this allowance by the magistrates. Many of the officials have to go eight or ten miles to find magistrates. What the principle is on which this requirement is based I have not been able to find out, and I beg to ask whether steps cannot be taken to repeal the requirement.
§ EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, I agree that on the face of it it is rather difficult to understand why this requirement should be necessary. The requirement, however, is a very old one. I believe it is over 300 years old. The justices do not enter into the question as to whether a rate ought to be made or not; if it is in proper form they must allow it. That is the law as it stands. I have no information that there is any fee to be paid when this ceremony takes place, but I understand from the noble Lord that that is so. So long as the overseers have the duty of making the poor rate it is thought that there is not any very great or sufficient reason for abolishing altogether the allowance of the justices. I am informed that the allowance of a rate by the justices is to prevent the possibility of any bogus rates being raised. Under the present conditions it is thought to be best upon the whole to allow the ancient custom to continue.
§ House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.