Sitting of 24 November 1893

QUESTIONS.

  DONEGAL MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General

  1679
  whether his attention has been called to the frequent delay of the mails between Strabane and the Town of Donegal and the western parts of Donegal; whether the delay arises from local causes or otherwise; and if any steps can be taken to secure more punctual delivery in future?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I am aware that there have been several recent failures of junction resulting in delay to the mails for the Town of Donegal, and that the arrangements for serving West Donegal by railway which commenced on the 1st of October have not proved so advantageous as was expected. The failures of junction arise from loss of time on the line between Portadown and Derry, on which a number of connections have to be maintained, and which is worked under the difficulties attendant upon a single line of railway. But the Department is in communication with the Railway Company, and all that is possible is being done to improve matters. In regard to the West Donegal Service, the existing arrangements, though not altogether free from drawback, will, it is believed, provide against a class of delays during the winter season which under the former arrangements were unavoidable.

  CRIME IN GLASGOW.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he or his deputes are aware that, owing to the great amount of criminal work in Glasgow, a large proportion of the investigations there regarding sudden deaths and criminal cases is conducted by clerks who hold no Crown appointment and are not under Civil Service Regulations, but are appointed by the Procurator Fiscal, and are paid salaries ranging from £70 to £130 per annum, the average salary being less than that paid to the police officers who make the preliminary inquiries; whether this practice of employing clerks to perform such work has existed in Glasgow for a considerable number of years; whether the present staff have performed their duties efficiently; and, if so, whether he will cause them to be officially recognised and to be more adequately remunerated; and whether, during the year 1892, the cases inquired into by the precognition clerks were 1,248, and by the Procurator Fiscal and his two deputes 332?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): I answer the first and second paragraphs of the question generally in the affirmative, but I am not able to state how the salaries of the Procurator Fiscal's clerks compare with those of the police officers. With reference to the third paragraph, I am informed that the present staff are thoroughly efficient. The question of their official recognition and their remuneration does not rest with me. The former, at all events, is part of a much larger question. As regards the fourth paragraph, I understand that the actual number of cases of death, accident, and unexplained fires, investigated in the Procurator Fiscal's Office (and nearly all of which were reported to the Crown Agent), from 1st January to 31st December, 1892, was 1,152, and that of these 891 were investigated by clerks, while 261 investigations (being those of a graver character) were made by the Procurator Fiscal personally and his deputes. Of course, these were in addition to many other duties of a highly responsible character which devolve upon the Procurator Fiscal, and which he discharges most efficiently.

  THE ARMENIAN PRISONERS.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are able to state the result of the representations which have been made with regard to various prisoners sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and exile in May last at Angora; and whether those representations have resulted in the release of any Christian political prisoners from the prisons of St. Jean d'Acre, Aleppo, Konieh, Cherum, and Cesarea, and the fortresses in Rhodes, Tripoli, in Barbary and Arabia, since the rescue of Professors Thoumaian and Kayayan?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): As my hon. Friend is aware, several of the prisoners sentenced in May last obtained a mitigation of their sentences in July. Other cases have lately been brought to the notice of the Grand Vizier, who promised that they should be carefully considered. A few of these have been released or acquitted,

  1681
  but, as I informed my hon. Friend in August, Her Majesty's Government could not interfere on behalf of the prisoners at the places he mentions without having strong evidence of their innocence.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Baronet aware that there are 2,000 Christian prisoners in Turkish prisons?
  SIR E. GREY: I cannot give the exact number; but whatever they may be, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to interfere without having strong evidence of their innocence.

  REMOVAL OF PAUPERS IN INCLEMENT WEATHER.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the removal of Elijah Warne, aged 90, and Ann Warne, his wife, aged 85, from Worlingworth, in the Hoxne Union, to the workhouse at Eye, a distance of seven miles, on a cold day, in an open tumbril, the journey occupying three hours; whether he is aware that both Elijah Warne and his wife have since then died, and that at the coroner's inquest held on the 11th instant the jury accompanied their verdict on the death of the man with a rider to the effect that the relieving officer was decidedly to blame for removing the deceased without any authority from the doctor that day, and that removal in an open tumbril was not a proper way to remove an old man a distance of seven miles, and that they thought an attendant ought to accompany a pauper under such circumstances; whether he is aware that on the 18th instant, at the inquest held on the body of the woman, the jury added to their verdict a rider that they wished to record their indignation at the great carelessness and lack of judgment shown by the relieving officer; also their opinion that the Hoxne Board of Guardians should issue such instructions to their officials as would prevent such a scandal; whether any Poor Law Orders are in force dealing with the subject of removals; and whether, pending the reform of the Boards of Guardians themselves, the Local Government Board will issue such instructions as will lead the Boards of Guardians to prevent such practices?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Local Government Board have received a copy of the depositions taken by the coroner at the inquest in the cases referred to, and thu facts appear to be as stated in the question. At present, it appears to the Board that the arrangements as regards the removal were most unsatisfactory, and they have requested the Guardians to call upon the relieving officer to furnish an explanation in writing of his conduct in the matter, and forward this to the Board, together with their observations, after their meeting on Monday next. The Board will then consider whether it is advisable that an official inquiry should be held into all the circumstances of the case. The Board have not laid down any Rules as to the mode in which the removal of persons to the workhouse should be carried out. They hold that the relieving officer is strictly responsible for making proper arrangements as regards conveyance, attendance, and otherwise when a person is removed to the workhouse under his directions, and if there is any question as to the fitness of the person to be removed he should obtain a certificate of the medical officer. Looking to the various circumstances in different cases, as to distance, physical condition of the person, and the state of the weather, it does not seem practicable for the Board to lay down specific Rules applicable to all cases.

  THE IRISH CATTLE TRADE.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the condition in which large numbers of cattle have recently been landed at Liverpool by steamers arriving from Ireland, and that owing to the injuries which the cattle had received there was considerable delay in getting them removed from the landing stage, while large numbers were uufit to be moved and had to be slaughtered there; whether he is aware that many of them had their legs broken and others were gored to death; and whether he will consider the expediency of framing more stringent Regulations for the conveyance of cattle from Ireland?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I have caused special inquiry to be made into the distressing circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers, and the Reports which I have received go to show that they were due to the exceptionally heavy weather we have recently experienced, and that their occurrence would not have been prevented by any more stringent Regulations than those at present in force. The matter will continue to engage my attention, and if there is any reason to suppose that the vessels or their fittings were defective I shall, of course, communicate with the owners and the Local Authority.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE COOTEHILL UNION.
  MR. YOUNG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that representations for cottages under the Labourers Acts have been lodged with the Guardians of Cootehill Union within the last two years, but that the Guardians have refused to act; whether he is further aware that the existing houses have been condemned as insanitary; whether a Petition from 10 of the labourers has been received by the Local Government Board over two months ago, asking for an inquiry under the provisions of the amended Act; and whether the Local Government Board propose to order an inquiry; if so, will he state when?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,: Representations have, as stated, been made to the Guardians of this Union, and they appear to have sent them to the sanitary officers for report as to the condition of the dwellings at present occupied by the applicants. The Local Government Board have received the Memorial referred to, and are now in correspondence with the Guardians on the subject. At present, it is premature to say whether the Local Government Board will consider it necessary to hold an Inquiry, but the matter will receive their special attention.

  SECTARIAN OUTRAGES AT MOYRUS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the
  1684
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on the 14th instant, the Mission boat, of about 13 tons, and her dingey were taken from the mooring place at Moyrus, County Galway, and sunk and destroyed; whether compensation is being sought for malicious injury; and if, in view of this recurrence of outrage in the locality, he will consider the advisability of establishing a police hut at Moyrus?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is true that the two boats referred to have disappeared, though it is not yet clear what became of them, and it is hoped the result of further inquiry will show that they were not maliciously destroyed. Compensation to the amount of £100 will, I am informed, be claimed. The question of the establishment of a police station at the place mentioned is engaging the attention of the local responsible authorities.

  THE LAND (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—REFIXING OF JUDICIAL RENTS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that many of the judicial leases, under the Land Act of 1881, will shortly expire, necessitating the refixing of the rents, he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee next Session to inquire into the working of the Fair Rent Clauses of the Act, and the principles upon which the Land Commission has proceeded, especially in regard to the question of tenants' improvements?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In this question, which is an important one, the hon. Member talks of the judicial leases "shortly expiring." I must point out to him that no originating notice for a rehearing or refixing of a judicial rent can be lodged until August, 1895, at the earliest, and that a further statutory term cannot commence until the expiration of 12 months from that date. The important circumstance mentioned in the question has for some time engaged my careful consideration, and Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that it will be proper for me to propose to the House at the beginning of next Session the appointment of a Select Committee on the subject, but with a somewhat wider Order of Reference than that indicated in the question. We think that

  1685
  the beginning of a second statutory term might very conveniently, and with advantage to the House, be preceded by the collection of information as to the principles upon which the Act has been administered hitherto.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I had no intention of indicating any form of Reference in my question.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of including in the scope of the Inquiry, not only the Fair Rent Clauses of the Act of 1881, but also the Rent Fixing Clauses of the Act of 1887; and will he make known before the close of the present Session the terms of Reference to the Select Committee, in order that we may consult our constituents?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's suggestion that the Inquiry would be incomplete unless it covered the Rent Fixing Clauses of the Act of 1887 and other recent rent legislation. That point was entirely in my mind. There is no reason that I know of why the Order and terms of Reference should not be placed in the hands of hon. Members before the end of the present Session.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Will the Reference be so framed as to include in the Inquiry the large number of cases excluded by legal decisions from the benefits of the Act of 1881, although they were intended to be so excluded?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not think I had bettor go into details as to the terms of Reference.

  DEATH FROM EXPOSURE NEAR STOURBRIDGE.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following occurrence:— The body of a man, since identified as William Hall, a glassmaker, was found yesterday morning in Nagers Fields, near Brierly Hill, Stourbridge. He had evidently perished from exposure during the bitterly cold night. His clothing was clogged with ice, and his hands had been torn in an apparent effort to get over some barbed wire fencing, on which blood stains were found; and whether he can take any steps to compel means to be taken by the Local Authorities to
  1686
  prevent such an accident occurring from the use of barbed wire?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I have no information of the particular case referred to, but, as the hon. Member is aware, an Act of this Session enables Local Authorities to take proceedings to require the removal of barbed wire which may probably be injurious to persons using the highway. The Local Government Board, however, have no power to give any instructions to the Local Authorities in the matter, or to enforce action by them under that Act.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Ought it not to have been possible for the Local Authorities to have discovered this poor man before he died. Can the hon. Gentleman say why this man was allowed to be out all night before he was found?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I really cannot say.

  COLONEL O'CALLAGHAN AND HIS TENANTS.
  MR. M'DERMOTT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolution adopted by the Scariff Board of Poor Law Guardians, on the 16th instant, with reference to the evictions on the estate of Colonel J. O'Callaghan, in County Clare, in which the Guardians solemnly protest against the action of the landlord in casting upon the ratepayers the cost of maintaining and keeping from starvation the tenants whom he has evicted, and implore the attention of the Government to the matter; whether he is aware that the rents on this estate were reduced by the Land Commission by almost one-half; whether the judicial rents still remain above the Government valuation; if in Ulster the judicial rents are, as a rule, considerably below the Government valuation; and whether under the circumstances, he will make some representation to the landlord, or take some steps for the protection of these tenants?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen the resolution referred to. The average reduction granted by the Laud Commissioners to the tenants of this estate is stated to have been about 40 per cent., and the rents, which are all judicial, are still above the tenement valuation. It

  1687
  would appear from the last Report of the Land Commissioners for the year ended August, 1891, which has been presented to Parliament, that the rents fixed in Ulster in that year were much below the valuations. It is not in my power to make any representation to the landlord; but I am bound to say that, in the face of the transactions as reported to me, the action of the local agent was not altogether free from harshness.

  ANNUAL COST OF A BATTLESHIP.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is approximately the annual cost of a battleship being added to the Navy, if the ship be in commission, inclusive of repairs, &c?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The annual cost of a battleship during commission is estimated to amount to about £50,000. This includes repairs, maintenance, sea-stores, coals, pay and victualling, &c.

  DERELICTS IN THE ATLANTIC.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of the fact that the United States Naval Department at Washington, on October 27, 1893, wrote to Mr. Otto Jaffe, of the Belfast Chamber of Commerce, stating that the Department highly appreciates Mr. Jaffe's efforts to bring about the cooperation of the British Government in the removal of derelicts, and that there was a joint resolution, now awaiting the action of the Congress, providing for this co-operation on the part of the United States; and whether, in view of the fact of the Naval Authorities of the United States of America urging upon the English Government in so friendly a manner joint action upon so important a matter, the Admiralty will immediately consider the advisability of sending out a cruiser to concert with the Kearsage warship of the United States in blowing up the floating wrecks now in the Gulf Stream?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I fear that I can add nothing to the answers given on Monday and Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. The Admiralty
  1688
  have received no information from the United States Government on the subject, and they are not prepared to divert a ship of war from her ordinary duties for the purpose of seeking derelicts. I may mention that no record of a ship striking a derelict and receiving damage can be found at the Admiralty.
  MR. MACDONA: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the papers report that another derelict — a Norwegian timber barque—is in the direct line of traffic between Liverpool and New York? Is it not worth the while of the Admiralty to try and save lives which may be endangered by it?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH: It is not a question of being worth while. It is a question of taking the ship away from other duties.
  MR. M'CARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason why there is no record of damage through derelicts is because nobody lives to tell the tale?
  [No answer was given.]

  DEFICIENCY OF TEACHERS FOR SMALL SCHOOLS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has completed the inquiries, which he undertook earlier in the Session to make, as to an alleged large deficiency in the supply of teachers for small schools; and, if so, whether he can communicate to the House the result of such inquiries?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The inquiry undertaken has been completed, and I may briefly summarise the result by saying that about one-third of Her Majesty's Inspectors report that complaints of serious difficulty in this matter have come to their knowledge; of the remainder, some have received no such complaints, while others mention a few instances due in large measure to exceptional causes. The principal reasons assigned are, first and most generally, lowness of salaries offered; and, secondly, the desire for town life, and the loneliness and dulness of remote country districts. With regard to the first of these, I may mention that in upwards of 30 of 150 cases

  1689
  which have been specially mentioned in these Reports, the teacher's salary appears to have been loss than £50 a year, and in nearly 40 others, between £50 and £60. It is also pointed out that the work of a single teacher in a small school, who has to prepare children of all standards in a number of subjects, is very exacting, and that there is a strong feeling among teachers against undertaking outside duties in order to gain a slight increase of income.

  NON-PAUPERISING WORK FOR THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his Department contemplates taking any action, and, if so, of what kind, to provide work of a productive and non-pauperising kind for the great numbers of men and women who are at present unable to find employment?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): On the 30th of September a Circular Letter was issued to all Sanitary Authorities reminding them of the scarcity of employment which exists in many parts of the country, and the probability of this becoming more general during the winter mouths, and urging upon them the great importance of their proceeding with the execution of sanitary or improvement works which might be carried out at the time, when there are numbers unemployed. In a number of eases the Board have received replies from the Local Authorities in London and the Provinces stating that works are in progress, or will be expedited or provided if the necessity arises; whilst in others applications have been made for sanction to loans for the execution of works which will afford employment to persons out of work. The Local Government Board have no power themselves to undertake works, nor are they empowered to require the Local Authorities to carry out works. The Board have no control whatever in the matter, except when it is proposed that the cost of the works should be defrayed by means of loans. In such cases the sanction of the Board to the borrowing is necessary, and the Board are most desirous of assisting the
  1690
  Local Authorities as far as they possibly can.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether some time ago he had an application from the Board of Guardians of Hackney for leave to purchase 50 acres of laud under some older Acts, on which to set to work a number of the unemployed. In what manner did he deal with the application?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No, Sir; I did not receive such an application.
  MR. J. BURNS: Arising out of that, I wish to have a clear and more definite answer as to whether, in the event of the Local Authorities not acting upon the suggestion in the Circular issued in November, 1892, and September, 1.898, it is without the power of the Local Government Board to compel such bodies to set works in operation?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Local Government Board have no power whatever. Our power is simply one of recommendation and advice. If Local Authorities refuse—and I am sorry to say in one or two cases they have, and perhaps not in the most courteous terms, refused—to take any notice of the recommendations of the Local Government Board, we have no power to interfere. We have already made a suggestion. I am bound to say that in a large number of cases, especially in the constituency in that part of London which my hon. Friend represents, satisfactory replies have been received, and large public works are being carried out in various parts of the Kingdom.
  MR. BODKIN: Did the Circular issued by the right hon. Gentleman apply to Ireland?
  MR. H. H. FOWLEP: I have no jurisdiction in Ireland.

  THE UNEMPLOYED AT PASSAGE WEST.
  MR. W. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has he received a copy of a resolution of the Cork Board of Guardians calling attention to the lamentable condition of the unemployed operatives and labourers at Passage West, and pressing that further works should be instituted as the only moans of averting widespead destitution and starvation during the winter; has the Irish Local Government Board taken

  1691
  steps similar to those taken by the Local Government Board in England to provide work for the unemployed in such emergencies; and, having regard to the capabilities of the Passage West Shipbuilding Yard for producing work of the highest class, will he advise the Congested Districts Board to obtain tenders from the Passage Company for the construction of any fishing boats about to be ordered under their auspices in connection with the deep-sea fisheries on the Western Coast?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A copy of the resolution referred to, which was adopted by the Guardians on the 16th instant, has been forwarded to me, and the matter is now engaging the attention of the Local Government Board. The Congested Districts Board do not at present contemplate getting boats built directly out of their own funds. Loans are, however, made to fishermen in congested districts to enable them to purchase boats, and these boats are, as a rule, constructed by builders living in or near the congested districts. My hon. Friend will agree with me that it would be unwise to take any steps which might be calculated to injure an industry within these districts.
  MR. SEXTON: Have the Irish Local Government Board concerned themselves at all about the condition of the unemployed. Is that not a question outside their duties? Have they power to issue such a Circular as has been sent out by the English Local Government Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has not been drawn to that point, but I will make inquiry.

  MANNING THE NAVY.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what number of men would be available for the Service of the Royal Navy in time of war; how many men would be required to man existing ships and for other purposes; and what reserve of men would remain to supply the casualties of war?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: My hon. Friend will find on pages 6 to 13 of the Navy Estimates the numbers available for the Royal Navy in time of war. It is not desirable, in the interests
  1692
  the Public Service, to give the further tails asked in the question.

  MISS ANNABELLA HUBERT'S PETITIONS.
  MR. WEBB: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Petitions of Miss Annabella Hubert, of Arichat, Cape Breton (more especially of one dated lath June, and printed in the Appendix to the 16th Report on Public Petitions for this Session) have received the attention of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether it would be possible to grant the Petitioner any relief, as against the action stated to have been taken by certain inhabitants of Cape Breton?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The matter to which the Petitions refer is not one coming within the province of Her Majesty's Government; but copies of the Petitions have been sent to the Governor General of Canada, for the consideration of his Ministers, with a request to be furnished with a Report on the case. The reply has not yet been received.

  THE CHEAP TRATNS (LONDON) BILL.
  MR. KIMBER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state in what manner the position has altered (as stated by him in a letter addressed to the hon. Member for Dulwich, and published in The Times of Saturday, 18th November) since the Second Reading of the Cheap Trains (London) Bill; and whether he proposes to appoint a Select Committee, in accordance with his own proposal and the decision of the House of Commons of 22nd February?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Debate on the Second Reading of the Cheap Trains Bill took place on the 22nd of February. On the 2nd of May the London County Council furnished the Board of Trade with the further Report of the Public Health and Housing Committee of that body, and asked the Board to convene a Conference of members of the Council and the Managers of Railways having termini in the Metropolis. A meeting took place on the 28th of June, under the presi-

  1693
  dency of Sir Courtenay Boyle, and four important resolutions were adopted: (1.) Workmen's tickets to be available for the return journey after 12 noon by any train, subject to special exceptions. (2.) Conditions of issue to be conspicuously advertised. (3.) Daily tickets to be issued in addition to weekly tickets. (4.) Railway Companies to consider system of grouping fares for varying distances up to 12 miles from terminus. It was agreed that the Conference should meet again when the Managers were prepared with a scheme under this head. I do not think, therefore, that any useful purpose would be served by appointing a Committee at present, but I will give the matter my best consideration next Session; and I hope that the hon. Member for Dulwich, whose illness we much regret, will then be able to take part in the consideration of a question in which he is so much interested.

  HALL-MARKING.
  MR. KIMBER: I to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether all silver plate manufactured in the United Kingdom, whether for home sale or for exportation, must be of the standard quality of 920–1000ths, and every article must be hall-marked; and whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the expediency of so altering the hallmarking laws as to permit silversmiths to manufacture goods without the compulsory obligation of hall-markings, in order to enable them to compete in those markets of the world in which neither the British standard nor the hall-mark are desired?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The law requires that silver-plate exposed for sale or exported from, or into, this country, should, with certain exceptions, be hallmarked, and should be one of the two standard qualities 959–1000ths and 925–1000ths. I can make no promise as to introduce a Bill for the abolition of compulsory hall-marking. I understand that such a measure would be unacceptable to the great majority of the trade.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman will bring in no Bill to alter the present system without a preliminary inquiry by a Select Committee or some other body?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly.

  ALLEGED RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN IRISH WORKHOUSES.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a case reported in the Dublin Daily Express, of the 21st November, concerning a Protestant pauper woman, aged 104 years, whose faculties have been decaying during the past six weeks, and who, lying at the point of death, was received into the Roman Catholic Church by Dr. Langan, Administrator of St. Mary's, Athlone; whether lie is aware that it was stated in a letter read before the Board of Guardians on Saturday, from the Rev. Dr. Campbell, that the old woman had often bitterly complained of what she had to endure in the workhouse, and was anxious to be removed from it; and what protection to their religious convictions will be afforded to poor people whose circumstances compel them to seek the shelter of the workhouses in Ireland? In putting the question, I wish to point out that no doubt, on the principle of "the better the day the better the deed," this transaction took place on the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to this matter, and they have instructed their Inspector to make inquiry into the circumstances. The Board of Guardians at their last meeting appointed a committee to consider the question of providing separate accommodation for sick Protestant inmates, and the Inspector will confer with this committee and see what can be done in the matter.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Has the Rev. Dr. Campbell's letter been sent to the Local Government Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Yes; they have it fully under their notice.

  THE BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS COMMISSION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President, of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Bovine Tuberculosis Commissioners may he expected, or can a date be fixed for its publication?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have made inquiry, and am informed by the Commissioners that the whole of the experi-

  1695
  mental investigations are concluded; that the Reports of two of the Sub-Commissioners are printed, and that the Report of the third Sub-Commissioner will probably be finished in a few days. Immediately on its completion the Commission will meet to draft the final Report, which it is confidently expected will be issued next month.
  MR. FIELD: Is this a definite promise on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that the Report will be issued next month?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have no power to make such a promise. I can only tell the House what the Commissioners say.

  RATES UNDER THE IRISH EDUCATION ACT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although the Corporation of Dublin is walling to work the Compulsory Clauses of the Irish Education Act, it has been advised that the rate by which the expenses are to he discharged, and described in the Act as local rate, is an insufficient definition to enable the Corporation to levy any rate for the purposes of the Act, and has also been advised this defect can only be remedied by an Act of Parliament; whether the Corporation, or any other body, communicated the terms of this legal opinion to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, or to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and when was the opinion first communicated; whether the difficulty of which the Dublin Corporation has been advised affects all other or any, and, if so, what other, cities and towns; whether, as the compulsory attendance provisions of the Act will come into operation on the 1st January, 1894, be will promote a Bill during this Session of Parliament to remedy this defect; whether, in case any Local Authority should neglect to work the Act, is it the intention of the Commissioners of National Education forthwith, after the 1st of January, to appoint School Attendance Committees, and see that the Act is carried into effect; whether, if so, in what way do the Commissioners intend to raise the funds necessary for the expenses of such School Attendance Committee; and
  1696
  whether the Commissioners of the Irish Government have obtained any legal opinion for their guidance on the point raised by the legal advisers of the Dublin Corporation; and, if so, what is the nature of such opinion?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am aware that legal advice has been given to the Corporation of Dublin to the effect mentioned. It is true they communicated on the subject to the National Board of Education. The Board have communicated with me, and the matter is now under the consideration of the Irish Law Officers. I suspect that it will be necessary to introduce a short amending Bill.
  MR. FIELD: Am I to understand that the Government will take such measures as are necessary to enable the Compulsory Clauses of the Act to be put into operation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is what I have said.
  In reply to Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the whole of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had not yet been received.

  IRISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUDITORS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, of Ireland whether the Local Government Board auditors, Ireland, are permitted to act as Directors of Public Companies, or auditors of same; and whether, if that be not lawful, steps will be taken to prevent this being done?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board inform me that they communicated to their auditors the Treasury Rule on the subject of the acceptance of Directorships of Public Companies, and that it has not come to the Board's knowledge that any of their officers have failed to comply with the Rule. Some of the auditors, with the Board's permission, audit the accounts of Light Railways, Harbour Boards, and other Public Boards, but the Board are not aware that any of them act as auditors of Public Commercial Companies.
  MR. FIELD: If I give the right hon. Gentleman private information in regard to the practice of certain gentlemen, will he put a stop to it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will, of course, attend to any information that is given me on the subject.

  FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS.
  MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any classification of foreign immigrants is made by the Board of Trade; if so, under what heads the classification is arranged; and whether he will at once make public the results shown?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 20th of November, in which I replied to a question framed in almost similar terms. We have no other classification than that which I then described, and if the hon. Member will call at the Board of Trade, the Commercial Department will be happy to show him the Reports in our possession.

  THE MATABELE WAR.
  Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be can give the House any information as to the campaign in Matabeleland, and the present position of King Lobengnla?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The following telegram was received at the Colonial Office from Sir Henry Loch last night:—
  "Colonel Goold-Adams reports, 18th November, that the reconnoitring party under Major Forbes found that Lobengula hail been, on 15th November, about 20 miles to the North of old Imyati, that he was moving towards the Pamabula forest, and that nearly all his regiments had deserted him and dispersed. Major Forties was still following him, and hoped to overtake him. None of the Matabele proper had so far made any overtures to surrender, but they only required the example of some leading men to do so."
  Sir H. Loch adds that, in view of information now before him, he regards the Matabele power to be entirely broken.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) ACT.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in how many cases action has been taken under the powers conferred upon the Board by the Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Act; and in how many cases has such action resulted in the reduction of the number of hours worked by railway servants?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Circular of the Board of Trade was issued on the
  1698
  19th of September, and replied to by Sir H. Oakley on behalf of the Railway Association on the 11th of this month; the inquiry of my hon. Friend is, therefore, somewhat premature. The Board are dealing with all the cases in which representations of excessive hours have been made to them; but the negotiations with the Railway Companies are not complete. I hope that in many cases the companies will deal satisfactorily with complaints without compelling a resort on the part of the Board to the ultimate powers of the Act.
  MR. DALZIEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of calling upon the different Railway Companies to forward Schedules of the present working hours?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think that would be too much to call upon the companies to do. But whenever we have a complaint we ask for and are supplied with those Schedules showing the hours upon that particular part of the line. No doubt the Act will be brought into practical operation.

  THE KUMPAM FESTIVAL.
  MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a paragraph from Trincomalee, that appeared recently in a Colombo newspaper, in which it was stated that the Kumpam festival of the Hindoos had just been held; that some of the devotees had iron hooks inserted into the flesh of their backs, and were pulled with a rope by another in the fashion of a driver; that the ground was covered by the blood from a great sacrifice of slaughtered animals; and that these proceedings were for the purpose of driving away evil spirits; whether he has also been informed of the further statement in the paragraph that, for the observance of this festival, a special public holiday was granted by Government on the recommendation of Mr. Nevill, the late assistant Government Agent: and what action the Foreign Office proposes to take with reference to the sanction of these barbarous proceedings by the Government authorities of Ceylon?
  MR. S. BUXTON: My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. My attention has not been drawn to the

  1699
  newspaper statements referred to; but if my hon. Friend will give me the date and name of the newspaper to which he alludes the Governor of Ceylon will be asked for a Report on the subject.

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has received a communication from the Secretary of the English Land Restoration League, enclosing a Memorial from the Secretaries of the Agricultural Labourers' Unions, suggesting that Acts of Parliament conferring powers on Boards of Guardians for providing work for the unemployed should be put in force; and whether he will state to the House what reply he has made thereto?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I have received a communication from the Secretary of the English Land Restoration League enclosing Memorials from Secretaries of Agricultural Labourers' Unions, and the subject is receiving the consideration of the Poor Law Department of the Local Government Board. I am informed that up to the present time there has been no case in which a Board of Guardians have submitted a scheme for the hiring of land for the purpose of their employing the poor at wages. If any application should be received by the Board they will consider whether it is necessary to issue any Rules or Regulations for the purpose of controlling or regulating the proceedings of the Guardians in the matter. There is, however, no power under which Guardians can borrow money for this purpose, and if any such power were to be conferred legislation would be necessary.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman refused to receive a deputation appointed by a conference of Boards of Guardians in the East End to submit a scheme. Why did he refuse to receive it?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I received a communication from a number of persons who were individual members of Boards of Guardians, but not from Boards of Guardians. Any application should be made in the form officially prescribed. And when one has been made the Local Government Board will consider if it is
  1700
  necessary to issue any rules on the subject.
  MR. BOUSFIELD: Did not the right hon. Gentleman receive an application from a Board of Guardians relative to a contemplated purchase of land, and did he not discourage any such action?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I cannot say I discouraged it. I had private letters which I cannot treat as official documents.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman I shall, at the close of the Questions, ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

  POISONING BY CARBOLIC ACID.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that since February, 1892, to November, 1893, there have been 230 deaths due to the taking of carbolic acid, 174 of which were suicidal and 56 accidental; whether, in view of the alarming increase of suicides from the fact of carbolic acid being sold in retail so cheaply, the Government will place carbolic acid under the Pharmacy Act, and only allow it to be sold by chemists in such small quantities as is the case of arsenic and prussic acid, &c, so that there may be greater restrictions placed upon its sale in small quantities; whether, with a view of bringing public attention to bear upon this matter, he will instruct coroners in certifying the cause of suicides to certify the name of the poison which caused the suicidal or accidental death in each case; and whether he will order a Return of the number of deaths caused by carbolic acid during the last five years to be placed upon the Table of the House?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I have no information as to the number of deaths due to the taking of carbolic acid between February, 1892, and November, 1893, except that which the hon. Member has been good enough to furnish. The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction with regard to the articles which are to be deemed poisons for the purpose of the Pharmacy Act, 1868. Additions to the articles specified in the Schedule may from time to time be made by resolution of the Pharmaceutical Society, with the approval of the Privy Council, and the

  1701
  Board will bring the matter under the attention of that Society. The Board have no jurisdiction with regard to coroners, and are not empowered to issue any such instructions as the hon. Member suggests. As regards the Return, I have been in communication with the Registrar General, and I understand that the particulars cannot at present he furnished for a later period than 1891. If the hon. Member moves for a Return for the five years from 1887 to 1891 it will be granted.

  BECHUANALAND MAIL RATES.
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that the charge for letters from this country to Bechuanaland is 2½d., and from Bechuanaland to this country 4d., and, similarly, the charge for parcels outward is 6d. and homeward 1s. 3d.; and, if this be the case, will he take steps to equalise the outward and homeward journey in each case by reducing the homeward to the figures of the outward charge?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am aware of the difference between the outward and the homeward letter rates; but the outward parcel rates is 1s. 3d., not 6d.; and it is believed that the homeward rate is the same. The Postal Service of South Africa is not under my control; and I may add that Bechuanaland is not included within the Postal Union. It would be contrary to the policy of Her Majesty's Government to put any pressure upon the Colonial Authorities to reduce homeward postage rates to the level of the outward rates.

  THE BODYKE EVICTIONS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent series of evictions at Bodyke, County Clare; whether he is aware that the rents in all cases were largely in excess of the Poor Law valuation, and that the tenants complained of being unable to pay the rents owing to the refusal of the landlord to continue the reductions which were allowed from 1888 to 1891, and the continuance of the low prices I of agricultural produce; is it a fact that the Sub-Sheriff and his party of bailiffs were accompanied by a body of
  1702
  more than 100 armed policemen under the command of four police officers; and, if so, why was this large force of constabulary drafted into the district; and whether the Irish Government have the power to charge private individuals a certain sum per head for the services of constables when requisitioned in large numbers, as is done by the authorities in London and other parts of Great Britain; and, if they had not such power, will he consider the propriety of introducing legislation with a view to acquire it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: In the nine cases in which ejectment proceedings were recently taken on this estate the rents were, as stated, largely in excess of the Poor Law valuations. As regards the inability of the tenants to pay rent, it appears that from 1887 to 1891 they were allowed abatements ranging from 25 to 32½ per cent. on their judicial rents, and that in 1892 these abatements were refused, the landlord demanding from all tenants the judicial rents. The Sub-Sheriff was protected by a force consisting of four officers and 100 men; this large force was considered by the local responsible authorities to be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace. It was supplied entirely from the county, and no charge will therefore fall on the country in respect of its employment. The police are required to afford protection to the Sheriff and others in the execution of the law, and neither in this country nor in Ireland is there any means of charging the cost of the police so employed to an individual or individuals as suggested.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this notorious estate abatements of rent were refused immediately after the last General Election, although they had been allowed for three years previously?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot exactly fix the time, hut tin; fact is as stated, I believe.

  IMPRISONMENT FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT IN IRELAND.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of John O'Connell, of Glouna-laugha, King Williamstown, County

  1703
  Cork, who was evicted in 1890, and who was sent to prison over five months ago for contempt of Court by Judge Monroe on the ground that he built and occupied a hut on the evicted farm; and whether, as the hut has long since been removed, he will communicate with the learned Judge with a view to ordering this man's immediate release?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts appear to be as stated, though I am informed that the hut has not been removed or interfered with. The discharge of prisoners in contempt cases is always dealt with by the Judge who makes the order of committal, and is not a matter in which the Executive can interfere.
  MR. MACNEILL: Seeing that a Judge can inflict any fine or term of imprisonment for contempt of Court, will the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill to modify those powers?
  MR. J. MORLEY: That is a very large question, and I think we have enough work on hand at present.

  TRADE COUNCILS BILL.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the hon. and learned Member for North Hackney whether, looking to the fact that Trade Councils exist in London and the great cities, and in many other towns, at the present time, he will be good enough to explain, either before or on the Motion for leave to introduce, the intention of his proposed Bill to make provision for the establishment of Trade Councils?
  MR. BOUSFIELD: The Bill proceeds on the lines of the Mining Boards Bill introduced earlier in the Session. It provides for the establishment of Trade Councils, consisting of equal numbers of employers and workmen, and proposes to give them powers to deal with trade disputes, hours of labour, insurance for accidents, the unemployed, and other matters.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: District by district, or over the whole country?
  MR. BOUSFIELD: Both.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: Has the hon. Member considered whether the title "Trade Council" will not lead to confusion in view of the Trade Councils already existing?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Baronet can ask that question when the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill is made.

  TRAINING SHIPS FOE THE ROYAL NAVY.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTEE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of boys for whom there is accommodation upon the existing training ships for the Royal Navy; and what is the number of boys voted by Parliament for the present year?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: There is accommodation in existing training ships for 5,706 boys. On page 6 of the Navy Estimates are to be found the numbers voted by Parliament, namely—Boys under training, 3,700, and boys available for sea service, 4,594; total, 8,204.

  ILLNESS ON TRAINING SHIPS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will give a Return showing the number of cases of death or invaliding on Her Majesty's training ships during the past two years, specifying the cause of death and the nature of illness in each case?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Annual Report on the Health of the Navy is in print and will be in the hands of Members very shortly. If my hon. Friend will examine it, he will find that information is given on the subject of his question. To prepare a special Return would necessitate a considerable amount of clerical labour. Perhaps he will confer with me if, after seeing the Blue Book, he desires anything further.

  THE NAVAL POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  SIR G. CHESNEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with reference to the assurance given by him that neither the House nor the country need entertain, in the existing circumstances, the smallest apprehension as to the maintenance of the distinct naval supremacy of Great Britain, and having regard to the time which must necessarily intervene between the laying down a plan of shipbuilding operations and carrying it out, his assurance may be understood to apply to the immediate future as well as to the present, in view of the rate of progress of building ships of war now obtaining in this and other countries?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is evidently, I think, founded upon certain assumptions as to the necessary interval between the adoption and the execution of any plan of shipbuilding. I understand from the Admiralty that arrangements for the reduction of that time as far as possible have been engaging the attention of the Admiralty. Therefore, when the Navy Estimates are explained to the House, it will be found that further shipbuilding will be begun at an early date, and, together with this, fresh provision for avoiding delays in pushing to completion the work which has already been ordered. These facts enable me to assert to the House that when I spoke of maintaining—I said the naval supremacy, but I conveyed what I think is the idea chiefly intended in another phrase perhaps more appropriate—the relative naval strength of this country, I referred to the future, without any exception or distinction between immediate and remote, as well as to the present time.

  SUGGESTED ROYAL RESIDENCE IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if Her Majesty's Government have considered the desirability of recommending the purchase, in Ireland, of a suitable residence for H.R.H. the Duke of York; and whether he is prepared to urge forward a matter of so much importance?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Her Majesty's Government have not at present in contemplation such a plan as the question indicates. At the same time, I hope I shall not be misunderstood in saying that, for Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that it is a, matter of great, and indeed of national, importance that the best relations should be established between the Royal Family and the people of Ireland.

  MAGISTRATES AND THE IRISH NATIONAL FEDERATION.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a report of a meeting of the Corporation of Drogheda,
  1706
  reported in The Drogheda Independent of November 4; whether he is aware that Mr. Butterly, who moved the adoption of a resolution originally passed by the Monasterboice Branch, I.N.F., and published in The Drogheda Independent on October 21, is a Magistrate; whether his attention has been called to a resolution moved at the same meeting, in which a Mr. Chambers was named and held up to execration, as a purchaser of certain agricultural produce; whether he is aware that the Mayor who presided at this meeting is a Magistrate; and whether, having regard to the character of the resolutions (moved and adopted), the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has been called to the conduct of these gentlemen on this occasion?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen an extract from the newspapers mentioned which purports to give an account of the proceedings referred to. The Mayor and Mr. Butterly are both Town Justices of Drogheda, and were, I may observe, both recommended by Lord Massereene, the Lieutenant of the County. The papers have been sent to the Lord Chancellor, with the view of his considering what action, if any, should be taken in the matter.

ADJOURNMENT.

  THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE,Member for the Southern Division of West Ham, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of j urgent public importance—namely, "the widespread destitution among large masses of the working class, due to so many being out of employment, and to the inadequacy of the measures adopted for dealing therewith;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than 40 Members but more than 10 having accordingly risen,
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that a Division be taken in accordance with the Standing Order.
  Question put, "That leave be given to move, That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 142.—(Division List, No. 331.)
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I trust the unemployed will now take the matter into their own hands.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not quite catch what the hon. Member said, but he must abide by the decision of the House.

TRADE COUNCILS BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD moved that leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of Trade Councils. He said, he was desirous to meet as far as he could the views of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean; but he could not find any other title to suit the Bill, and he did not think that practically any difficulty would arise, because there would be no confusion where the name "Trade Council" had a territorial appellation put to it, as in the case of the Durham Trades Council.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of Trade Councils."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
  MR. CREMERsaid, he joined the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean in appealing to the hon. Member to find another title for this Bill. There was no probability of the Bill passing, but, if there were, it would lead to great confusion. Trade Councils had been in existence 40 years, and they did not want any State encouragement; they were perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. There was scarcely a large town in the United Kingdom in which there was not a Trade Council already established. What the object of the hon. Member could be in proposing that Trade Councils should be established by law when they were already in existence in nearly every large town he failed to understand. It was because he believed that a Bill of this kind would lead to a great deal of confusion in the public mind, and would cause dissatisfaction among the industrial classes, that he felt it his duty to oppose the introduction of it, unless
  1708
  the hon. Member would try to find some other title for the Bill.
  Other hon. Members having risen to address the House,
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, I agreed to permit a short speech in favour of the Bill and another against it; and both having been made, I now proceed to put the Question.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bousfield, Sir A. Scoble, Mr. Stewart Wallace, Mr. Kearley, and Mr. Whiteley.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 471.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.-(No. 274.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 22 nd November.]

  SIXTH NIGHT.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 2 (Parish meetings.)
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE*MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.) moved, in page 2, line 18, after "but," to insert "the expenses of a poll." He had endeavoured to show the other day that it was unjust to lay down a scale of expenditure, for the parish meeting at all events. The expenses of those meetings would be in most cases very petty, and he believed that the effect of laying down a scale of expenditure would be, in the great majority of cases, to tend to increase the expenditure rather than to lower it. A scale must always provide for the maximum amount of expenses, but, as they all knew, when a maximum was once laid down, it became the usual amount that was charged.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,: I accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 18, after the word "but," to insert the words "expenses of a poll."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  MR. FULLER*MR. FULLER (Wilts, Westbury) moved—
  In page 2, line 19, to leave out "County Council, or in default of that Council," and insert "parish meeting, or in default of the parish meeting."
  The object of the Amendment was to provide that the parish meeting should frame the scale of expenses at parish elections. There was some objection to the parish meeting framing the scale of fees for its own election, but he did not think that objection came from the Government side of the House. They had heard on several occasions that the agricultural population was not capable of transacting public business. The present agricultural labourers, at till events, were wise in their generation, for they had placed a Liberal Government in Office, and they expected that they would be assisted in their parish work by the Government. It seemed to him that the Bill itself showed that the parish meeting wits it wholely competent body for the purpose of framing its own scale of fees. In the first place, the Bill gave power to the parish meeting of appointing its own Overseer, but there was no demand on the part of the County Council to fix the scale of fees or remuneration to Overseers. Again, the Bill said that the parish meeting should appoint its own returning officer, and he could not understand why, if the parish meeting was capable of choosing a returning officer, it could not also decide the fees that should be given to that officer. The Parish Council acted as a body under the command of the parish meeting, and there was nothing in the Bill to limit the power of the parish itself to give what salaries or emoluments they liked to the officers appointed to carry out the work. Again, there was it power of acquiring land, and there wits nothing in the Bill to limit the parish in the fees they paid to lawyers for the transfer of land. Then it seemed to be it new departure that the County Council should have the power of fixing these fees, because the Parish Council had the power of carrying out the adopted Acts. There were certain elections to be carried out under the adopted Acts, and in these cases they found that the Churchwardens were the persons authorised to carry out the elections of the officers.
  1710
  This power had been exercised for so long that he could not understand why there should be an interference with it now on the part of the County Council in the fixing of the scale. It seemed to him almost tin insult to the large parishes to say that they were not capable of fixing their own scale of fees for themselves in the case of election officers, and, its regarded the small parishes, they ought to have an opportunity now of being educated in those duties of citizenship which now, happily, were part of the education of the young, introduced by his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. If it should be found difficult for the parish meeting to carry out the elections, the better way would be for the Local Government Board to issue certain directions which could be given through the Overseers.
  MR. WHARTONrising to a point of Order, said, he did not think the hon. Member knew what the Amendment was. It was simply the expenses of the poll, whereas the hon. Member was dealing with a great number of expenses which were utterly foreign to the subject of the Amendment.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would keep to the point.
  MR. FULLERsaid, he was discussing the framing of a scale of expenses for the taking of the poll, and he thought the parish meeting should do that, as he did not see how the County Council could frame the expenses in an equitable way. The difference of rateable value in the several parishes was such as to make it next to impossible.
  MR. STOREYrising to it point of Order, asked the Chairman whether it was not a fact that the only power the County Council was to have was to frame it scale for the expenses of the poll. If that were so, he submitted that all reference to expenses and to the rateability of parishes had nothing to do with the question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is so.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 19, to leave out the words "County Council, or in default of that Council," and insert the words "parish meeting, or in default of the parish meeting."—(Mr. Fuller.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Amendment has been altered so as to confine it entirely to the expense of the poll, and what is the cheapest and best way of framing a scale. I think it is the desire of everybody that the scale should be as economical as possible. My idea was that we would be more likely to get the cheapest scale from the County Council. I do not wish it myself; but if the Committee wishes it, I am prepared to insert the words—"with the consent of the Local Government Board." [Cries of "No!"] I am quite prepared to trust the County Councils.
  MR. JESSE COLLINSsaid, he thought his right hon. Friend under-estimated the importance of the Amendment. It should be remembered that a large number of parishes were extremely poor, and under the proceedings of the Parish Councils he took it that there would be a great number of polls. He believed that the parish meetings would do the business much more economically. In France a great deal of that kind of work was done gratuitously, and it was quite probable that that would prove to be the case in parishes in this country.
  MR. STOREYsaid, his right hon. Friend had not noticed the form of the Bill. The words were that the scale was "not to exceed." The object was that the County Council should fix the scale, so as to secure moderation, but the carrying of it out would be in the hands of the parish meeting.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he was quite sure that the parish meetings would be in good hands if they entrusted their economics to the County Council. He was a returning officer himself to a County Council, and he could tell the Committee that the first election was conducted on the Sheriff's scale, and the second on their own, the hitter costing half the amount. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would stand by the words of the clause.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that, though, as a rule, he was a supporter of the County Council, yet on this particular point his sympathies were rather with his
  1712
  hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire. There was a considerable difference between the County Council committee drawing the scale for its own elections, and drawing the scale in the case of these parishes. They would have to lay down a scale which would have to be a maximum scale, suitable to the large parishes. The expenses could not always follow the exact limits of population, though they might to some extent. In the case of the small parishes, with the number of polls they would have under this Bill, he thought it was essential that they should be allowed to conduct them as simply and cheaply as possible, and he confessed that he feared many of them would be misled by a scale laid down by a higher authority—a scale which, if it was to be one hitherto laid down by County Councils, must be laid down on a professional basis, which would not suit the humble circumstances of a small parish. He thought the Government would be well advised if between this and Clause 35 they devised some scheme for a less expensive kind of poll than that laid down. The Government might well consider whether it would not be wiser in the interests of economy to allow the parish meeting, in the first instance, or the Parish Council, when it was created, to lay down a scale which should have the consent of the County Council.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. He could not share the fears of his hon. Friend who had just sat down, nor could he understand upon what they were based. The hon. Member for Sunderland had pointed out that what was proposed was that the maximum scale should be fixed by the County Council. If parishes were desirous, as he had no doubt they would be, that their expenses should be on the lowest possible scale, there would be nothing to prevent them from doing the work gratuitously. He believed himself that a great deal of the administration of this parochial business would be done voluntarily by the people. He thought there would be no difficulty in getting the unpaid assistance of people resident in the parish, and he did not think that the mere fact that the County Council should fix a scale would affect the matter

  1713
  at all. It was unquestionably desirable that there should be uniformity in the practice. If they had different parishes adopting totally different rates, he did not think the result would be good administration. The County Council could be well trusted in the matter. He hoped the Government would be supported in standing by this provision.
  MR. STRACHEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Wiltshire would persist in his Amendment, otherwise great risk would be incurred of extravagance. With regard to the scale by the County Council, at first the uncontested elections of the Somersetshire County Council the amount was fixed at eleven guineas, and was subsequently only reduced to seven guineas, whereas in the County of Lincolnshire, he was informed that now an uncontested election only cost a guinea. It would not be right to allow the County Council to fix the maximum without the consent of the parish meeting.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he must also urge the hon. Gentleman to persist in his Amendment, as he believed it to be a sound and proper one. The authorities responsible for the Bill had refused to give the parish meeting liberty, even as regarded its own hours of meeting. He certainly thought it should have a small amount of liberty given it. They did not require uniformity in matters of this kind. It was not necessary that the machinery should be uniform as regarded large and small parishes. Therefore, he thought the parish meeting ought to be allowed to fix its own maximum scale. Having accepted the last Amendment they had decided that they had got to this: that the expenses were not to exceed a certain limit. There was no limit put.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The words are that the expenses incidental to the parish meeting are to fixed by the parish meeting.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that surely, of all things incidental to the parish meeting, the poll was the most important. If it was reasonable to leave the ordinary expenses of the parish meeting and the incidental expenses to the meeting itself, it was surely proper and necessary that that should include the poll.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: This is a point which is not of first-rate import-
  1714
  auce. The pros and cons have been clearly stated, and I think we may now take the opinion of the Committee upon it in order to clear the ground.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not agree with the clause as it now stood, nor entirely with the Amendment. But he thought that they ought not to have that uniformity which some Members were so anxious for. It was totally absurd that the expenses of a poll in the case of parishes of from 500 to 1,000 electors and of parishes where there were only 20 or 30 electors should be the same, and, therefore, he thought that the smaller parishes ought to be allowed to fix the amount of the expenditure they wanted to incur. He suggested that the words should run—
  "The parish meeting, or, in default thereof by the County Council."
  He did not wish the matter to go before the Local Government Board, and he thought his proposal would be a very fair compromise.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES moved an Amendment, in line 19, to leave out the words after the first word "Council" to the end of the sub-section. He said his object here, as well as elsewhere, was to get rid of the over-riding influence of the Local Government Board. If they were going to give further liberty to the parishes they should keep the Local Government Board out of the business altogether.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 19, to leave out from the first "Council" to end of sub-section.—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the words were simply inserted as a precaution.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR R. PAGET SIR R. PAGET (Somerset, Wells) moved the following Amendment:—
  In page 2, line 20, at end, insert—"In every parish not having a Parish Council the parish meeting shall be a body corporate by the name of the parish assembly, with the addition of the name of the parish, and shall have perpetual succession, and may hold land for the purposes of their powers and duties without licence in mortmain, and any act, of the parish assembly may be signified by an instrument executed at

  1715
  a meeting of the parish assembly under the hands, or, if an instrument under seal is required, under the hands and seals of the chairman and two other members of the assembly."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think the proper place for this Amendment, which is a very important one, should be on Clause 18, which deals with the whole question of the powers of the parish meeting, and if the hon. Baronet would postpone it until then it would be very convenient, and would give the Government an opportunity of considering the matter.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion he would postpone this matter until they reached Clause 18.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, he had no doubt the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman would apply to him also, he having an Amendment down. But he should not like to allow the matter to pass without asking a further question of the President of the Local Government Board. The structure of the Bill had been much changed since the beginning in this respect: At first there was to be a network of Parish Councils covering the whole country. Either each parish was to have a Council or it was to be grouped with another parish which was to have one. Of course, there would not be a network of Parish Councils covering the whole country, and he submitted that before they parted with this clause they should have from the right hon. Gentleman a clearer statement of what he proposed should be the government in those parishes where there would be no Parish Councils.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will put the Amendments down, and they will appear on the Paper to-morrow.
  MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, the Amendment which he had put down covered certain of the ground of the last Amendment, but it also suggested that all the powers, duties, and liabilities which a Parish Council would have, if it had been established and had come into office, should vest in the parish meeting, and that upon a Parish Council being established it should be the successor of the parish meeting, and thereupon all the powers, duties, and liabilities of the parish meeting should then vest in the Parish Council, which should be considered in law as being the same person.
  1716
  That was one solution—to let the parish meeting be in fact, though not in name, the Parish Council until a Parish Council was established, and thus let the Parish Council be the successor. He had put down his Amendment, not dogmatically, but suggestively; and although the right hon. Gentleman had put down Amendments, he thought he should let them know before they passed Clause 2, which dealt with the parish meeting, what was the general nature of his scheme for dealing with the government of parishes where no Parish Council was established, and where for many years it might not be established.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERdid not think that course would be conducive to public convenience or the economy of time, as it would raise another Debate on these points. He had carried out all the obligations he had entered into with the House, but it would not be fair until the whole scheme was before the Committee to discuss the question.
  SIR C. W. DILKEwho had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  In page 2, line 22, at end, add,—"(8) The provisions of this section, but not the provisions of the First Schedule to this Act, shall apply to common vestries of parishes in urban districts as well as to parish meetings for rural parishes,"
  said, he did not propose to move it; but it might be convenient if the President of the Local Government Board would state what he proposed to do with these common Vestries. The reason he did not propose to move the Amendment here was because it would be more convenient to deal together with common Vestries and select Vestries. There were select Vestries under Hobhouse's Act and select Vestries by custom. The latter varied very much amongst themselves.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I rise to Order. There is no Question before the House.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Baronet is entitled to move his Amendment formally.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I move it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before that takes place I understand that for the convenience of the Committee the right hon. Baronet is asking a question of the President of the Local Government. If the

  1717
  Amendment is seriously moved I must say that, in my opinion, at this stage of the Bill it is out of Order.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to give notice that I shall bring up a new clause to deal with select and special Vestries unless my right hon. Friend intends to do so. Perhaps it would be convenient if he would tell us.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid the question would arise on a later clause.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Constitution of Parish Council).
  MR. HANBURYrose to move the following Amendment:—
  In page 2, line 23, after "shall," insert "be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish only, and shall."
  He said, that on the Amendment he moved two or three evenings ago the President of the Local Government Board was good enough to say that when they reached the constitution of the Parish Council he might be able to make some concession to them with regard to the universal admission of outsiders into the Parish Council which at present existed under the Bill. Several of his hon. Friends had got Amendments on the Paper to some extent, though not in principle, differing from his. His object in moving this Amendment was not so much to tie down the electorate for the Parish Council to the actual electors of any one parish, but to recognise that the Parish Council should consist of men who really were interested in the locality. Of course, if any other Amendment would carry out that proposal better he should be perfectly willing to withdraw in its favour, but he thought they must maintain the principle that these Parish Councils ought to be manned by men who had a distinct interest in the locality. Under the Bill as it stood it was quite possible that the whole of any Parish Council should be elected from men coming from London, and it would be quite possible, too, for these men so elected to choose an outsider as Chairman. It was against that principle he objected. He would go so far as to say they ought not to have the right of
  1718
  choosing a Chairman outside their body altogether, but that was a subject for a separate Amendment. There were strong reasons why the Bill as it stood should be objected to, because these villages, throughout the length and breadth of England, differed from one another almost as much as adjoining estates differed from one another. A man from Dorsetshire who came on to a Parish Council in Staffordshire would be utterly at sea, and would know nothing whatever of the particular locality for which he was legislating. There was only one reason he saw in favour of his own Amendment as against the Amendment of the Member for Salford or the right hon. Member for Bordesley. He limited his Amendment to the electors of the parish, and in favour of that particular proposal he pointed to the fact that it ensured taxation and representation going together. If they took people from outside—even from adjoining parishes—they need not have any connection with the village for which the Parish Council had been established, and they would, therefore, be representing a parish for which they paid no taxation whatever. Another reason why he should like to see this or a similar Amendment carried was that it seemed to argue great distrust of the labourer that they should require the assistance of an outsider from London or anywhere else to come to advocate his cause in the Parish Council. He could not see that it was either in the interest of the landowner or of the farmer that this outsider should be brought in, so that it must clearly be in the interest of the agricultural labourer. But was he not capable of taking care of himself? It showed a distrust of the agricultural labourer, which, he was sorry to say, had run too much throughout many clauses of this Pill. They had been afraid to trust him with the hours of the parish meeting, with the particular form of government, but they had made no provision for the hour suppose he was to be on the Parish Council, and now they had proposals in the Bill which apparently assumed he was not fit to legislate for himself, and must have outsiders to assist him. Some Amendment such as he proposed ought to be adopted so as to keep these local affairs in the hands of local people, who knew the wants of the locality. He begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 23, after the word "shall," to insert the words "be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish only, and shall."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  "SIR C. W. DILKEobserved that this question was fully discussed in 1870 during the Debates on the Education Act. He remembered Mr.Forster coming down to the House and, although he was not looked upon as an extreme Liberal, making a strong defence indeed of the democratic principle of the choice of the elector being unlimited and absolutely free, and that view prevailed, and that matter was left to Rules to be made by the Education Department with an expression of the strong opinion of Mr. Forster that the choice should be as wide as possible. All the difficulties which the hon. Member had pointed out might possibly occur under the Bill as it stood could equally occur under the School Board system, but they never had occurred. The hon. Member for Preston suggested that it would be possible for a district to choose an outsider or to choose the whole of the Parish Council from London. It would be possible for any School Board for a rural or urban district to do so, but it had never done so yet. Practically, the working of the system was to give a free choice to the elector to choose whomsoever he thought was best qualified to serve him. He thought the principle laid down in the Bill was far more defensible than any other, and if his right hon. Friend had been willing to defend that principle adopted in the Bill in the same way as Mr. Forster defended that principle from attack against every portion of the House of Commons—and succeeded in carrying that view in the Education Act—he should have supported his right hon. Friend. But he heard the other day words fall from the right hon. Gentleman which made him conclude that on this point he was willing to defer to the representations made to him from different parts of the country; therefore, he feared it was too late to press the general view in favour of the Bill as it now stood. As practical men, what they had to consider was what alternative they should adopt. He was bound to say that amongst the various alternatives—all of which greatly limited the choice or the
  1720
  freedom of the local elector—he should prefer residence in the parish, or the neighbourhood of the parish, to a strict qualification of an electorate within the parish itself. The more democratic view was to give more choice to the elector, and if they were to limit him absolutely to the electors of a parish in some rare cases they might shut him out from choosing for the Parish Council some person in whom he had great confidence and whom he would like to have appointed, and to his mind they would gain nothing by the limitation. In 99 cases out of 100 persons who would be actually chosen would be electors in the parish, but the one-hundreth case was the one where they left the door open, and where a man who was not an elector of the parish might be a very desirable man to elect on the Parish Council. They had decided that small parishes were not to be grouped without their consent, and that meant practically that some of them would not be grouped. The smaller the parishes they had the more certain it was there would be a difficulty with regard to obtaining people, and the more necessary it was to give freedom of choice in this respect. He knew a small parish which was likely to have a Parish Council, although it was not certain it would receive one. If it should receive one he was bound to say there was one man who lived in an adjoining parish, but who had considerable connection with the parish which would have the Council, who probably would be one of the best members that could possibly be found in that body. Therefore, he should prefer residence, in the wider sense, to include the neighbourhood instead of actual residence within the narrow limits of the parish. He would mention another matter which would show that difficulties would arise if they limited very closely the choice within parochial boundaries. In the case of all parishes which had been dealt with under the Divided Parishes Act from time to time, they had the parochial charities of the parish now belonging to people who lived in other parishes. In one particular case he had in mind the parish now had a limited population. It was, 20 years ago, before the Divided Parishes Act, ten times as populous as it was at the present time, but being in a great number of pieces the whole of these pieces had been detached

  1721
  from it and added to larger parishes. But under the Divided Parishes Act the inhabitants of a small parish were not the only persons who were entitled to the charities of that parish, the persons living in neighbouring parishes to which parts of that parish had been added being entitled to participate in the charities. That fact had given a very close connection indeed in parochial government between two or other neighbouring parishes. He did not believe these parishes would be grouped; most of them were fairly large, and would have Parish Councils. But it was in that particular case that the gentleman who was the manager of the parish charities, and did not live in the parish, should be capable of being elected. He had mentioned that particular case as the type of many cases which might arise in different parts of the country, and he would press for the widest extension of the principle of election that could be given in the Bill. If they were driven from the principle in the Bill itself he hoped residence in the neighbourhood might be chosen.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I do not know why it should be considered a democratic; principle that persons having nothing whatever to do with the affairs of a place should be entitled to govern it. That appears to me to be absolutely contrary, so far as I understand them, to the true principles of democracy, but the right hon. Baronet is a greater authority on that point than I am. I am glad to understand, from what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board the other day, that be is practically prepared to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend behind me. The point which appears to be a question of doubt, and which was raised by the right hon. Baronet, is whether a person residing in the parish, or residing just outside the parish in the adjoining parish, but who is not himself or herself an elector of the parish, should be qualified as a Parochial Councillor? It appears to me the simpler and easier thing to do would be what my hon. Friend behind me proposes—namely, to confine the right of election to the electors themselves. But if it is necessary for any purpose—which I confess I do not understand—to go beyond that, I really fail to see why
  1722
  a person residing out of the parish and not having any interest in the parish qualifying him to be an elector should be any more entitled to be a Parochial Councillor in a rural parish in England than if he lived in London and had an interest there. I think the right to election ought, at any rate, to be confined to those connected with the parish itself. I believe that view is widely and generally entertained—quite apart from political opinion or anything of the kind—in all rural parishes. They do not like interference from outside. They are quite as jealous, perhaps more so, of neighbouring parishes to themselves than they are to any other part of the country. They want to manage their own affairs themselves. It was that this Bill, I imagined, was intended to promote, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
  MR. CHANGINGthought the President of the Local Government Board was well advised in surrendering this portion of the Bill, and he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would be able to devise a good solution of the question raised. He thought, from his experience of rural villages, that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite was the prevalent opinion in villages and parishes. He would point out one omission in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston—that was, he did not, refer to any grouped parishes at all, and he was quite sure, from what he knew, that there would be a certain number of grouped parishes in spite of the past discussions in the House; therefore, it would be necessary, in case the Amendment were adopted, that some words should be introduced to cover the case of grouped parishes. What would meet the general view of County Members on his side of the House would largely be the adoption of the principle of residence, and also the principle of the parochial elector. For his part, he thought the most equitable solution would be to confine it to the resident parochial electors, and they might go so far with advantage as to include not only the parish itself or the grouped parishes, but also the adjoining parishes. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would offer them a solution which would meet their

  1723
  views on a question on which he believed both sides of the House were practically agreed.
  MR. HANBURYwished to point out that his Amendment did meet the case mentioned by the last speaker. In Clause 1 it was distinctly stated that grouped parishes would form a parish under this Bill.
  MR. PERKSexpressed the hope that the President of the Local Government Board would not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton. Most of them were familiar with cases in the market towns and county districts where there were large numbers of owners owning little property in the villages around, who, if this limitation were adopted, would be disqualified from acting on the Parish Councils of such villages. The term "parochial electors" could not be improved, but if they attached the further condition that he must reside in the village, they would deprive many efficient men of the power of becoming Parish Councillors.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, what they were endeavouring to do was to secure efficient and economic administration, and to get the residents and people of a parish interested in its welfare to come and meet together and take part in its affairs. That sound economical administration, he apprehended, would best be provided for by entrusting the duty of managing the affairs of the parish to those who had got a personal interest in the locality. The Amendment embraced those who were most personally interested, and most likely to administer the affairs of the parish effectively and economically. A good deal of stress had been laid on the individualities and antagonism and rivalries of separate parishes. That was a very potent factor, and there was a very healthy rivalry among parishes. They ought to endeavour to maintain the parishes as a unit; the electors of the parish were those who would best represent it, and he did not think they could go wrong in accepting the Amendment.
  MR. H. L. LAWSONdesired to see the parish managing its own affairs through men who were not outsiders, but he did not think hon. Gentlemen had sufficiently taken into account the technicalities and
  1724
  disqualifications of our Register. It seemed to him that it would be a dangerous thing to adopt the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston, and thus limit the choice to parochial electors only. There were lots of technical objections raised to men being continued on the Register from year to year, on account of break of residence and other reasons; and under the present system it took a man two years to get on to the Register. There might be men of all classes who might be disqualified by the words of the Amendment whom nobody would wish to see shut off the Parish Council. He would suggest they should insert the words "resident in the district." He did not want to shut out men from adjoining parishes and those who would be disqualified from merely technical objections to being placed on the Register for the year.
  MR. WHARTONthought if the words "or the adjacent parish only" were added to the Amendment it would meet with the views of both sides. It would then read—
  "Shall be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish or the adjacent parish only."
  He felt himself that they might very well exclude the most desirable persons for the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Parish Council by shutting out those who resided in the adjoining parish. He knew one gentleman who had hardly any property in the parish in which he resided, but in the adjoining parish he had a considerable number of houses, and would probably be selected as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Parish Council in this latter parish; but if they did not put in the words he had now suggested, this gentleman would be shut out from the Parish Council. If the right hon. Gentleman agreed to his suggestion he thought it would meet the case.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the original intention of the Government was to follow the example of the School Board elections, which had worked with perfect satisfaction in all parts of the Kingdom. The Government desired, of course, that the persons resident in the parish and paying the rates of the parish should be those who should represent the parish. In laying down such a rule they had to recognise the fact that their

  1725
  electoral system was a complicated one, and also the fact that there were in many parishes many persons deeply interested in their prosperity, and eminently qualified to promote the well-being of their inhabitants, but who would be disqualified if the qualification were confined simply to the electors. There were lodgers—single men and women—who would be able to render great service to the parishes where they lived. If the limit of qualification were restricted to electors only, all married women would be excluded from having any share in the affairs of the parish—a result which he would deplore. Another class of persons consisted of those who lived over the border, and who might give valuable help in local government. He knew one gentleman who sat on the other side of the House who was in that position, and whose assistance to an adjacent parish would be a great advantage. He was willing to accept the proposal as to the parochial elector, but it was a question whether only the parochial elector should be included. He gathered the general opinion that there should be a combination of qualifications—namely, of electorship and residence. He was not now stating the views of the Government. What he desired was that the Committee should come to a unanimous decision on the subject. He frankly admitted that the original proposal of the Government would be too wide; but, on the other hand, he thought the Amendment would render the qualification too narrow. Perhaps they would meet the difficulty by adopting a qualification to include persons on the Register as parochial electors, or persons who had resided, say, for six months, in the parish, or within two or three miles of the parish. The real point was—What would work best in securing the best electorate? What they should prevent was the "carpet-bagger" being elected. They did not want, in the Parish Council, as wide a limit as in the County Council or municipal system; but he thought if they brought in persons who lived within two or three miles, and adopted the residence qualification as he suggested, it would meet the difficulty. He threw this out for the consideration of the Committee.
  MR. W. LONGthought the right hon. Gentleman had made a very valuable concession. The
  1726
  principle they ought to stand by was that a person should be resident in the parish or interested in the parish. Whatever rule was adopted there must be some accidental cases where the application would result in hardship. If they took the parish elector as the first qualification they would be on firm ground. He thought the further suggestion an excellent one, and he was prepared to agree if the Amendment provided for 12 months' residence.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the concession made by the right hon. Gentleman was very considerable. He know a case, a parish, just beyond the border of which lived four farmers, who had a greater interest in the parish in which their houses were not than in the parishes in which they resided. They should have some elasticity in the matter, so that persons living in the adjoining parishes might be taken iu in such circumstances. He had heard it said that the words "adjoining parishes" would be unnecessary, because if a man was an owner or occupier in the parish he would appear on the Register. He much preferred the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) to that of the hon. Member for Preston. As far as possible, the people of each parish should manage their own affairs, and owners, occupiers, and labourers should have their full voice. They did not want persons from outside—men with a little idle time on their hands. They would like the Parish Council to be as representative of the parish as possible. Looking at the qualifications in the matter of county elections, he would venture to suggest to the Committee whether the words proposed by the right hon. Member for Bordesley would not meet all that was required to be done.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, if a man had an interest in a parish, though he might have his residence in an adjoining parish, he ought to be in a position enabling him to be elected on the Council. He understood his right hon. Friend to concede that. He thought if the hon. Member for Preston added words implying a residential qualification, they would at all events settle that point. Whether there was anything now to settle was a

  1727
  question to be dealt with afterwards. Mr. Hanbury said he was prepared to so alter his Amendment that the Parish Council should consist of a Chairman and Councillors,
  "who shall be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish only, or from persons who shall have resided therein for the 12 months immediately preceding."
  An hon. Member: Six months.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Amendment, as altered, would not embody all the suggestions of the President of the Local Government Board. Either residents of adjacent parishes—[Cries of "No!"]—or within three miles, should be included.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It would be more convenient to add now the words, as last proposed.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But we cannot accept the Amendment with the addition, because it still contains the word "only."
  SIR W. WEBSTERsaid, he would like to say just a word or two, for the purpose of warning the Committee against any words of extension. He did not wish to add anything to the views which bad been expressed regarding parochial electors; but he would warn the Committee against the use of any such language as "adjacent" or "adjoining." If they used these words they would have persons residing in small towns claiming to be electors in parishes outside those towns. Such terms as these were very ambiguous. There were in many parts of England isolated parts of counties entirely surrounded by another county. They had cases of two parishes eight miles long, and in such cases they would see the use that could me made of these words. On the whole, the Committee had better confine themselves to parochial electors and residents in the parish. Anomalies there would be, whatever rule was adopted; but it would be better, he believed, to avoid the use of "adjacent" or "adjoining," and keep within the limit of the parish itself.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsuggested that the latter part of the Amendment might run,
  "or persons who shall, during the preceding [] months, have resided in, or within three miles of."
  This would carry out the whole scheme.
  1728
  THE word "only" struck out of the Amendment.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, they should have some understanding regarding the period of residence. The Amendment prescribed a 12 months' residence. He would prefer six months, and so would a great many others. Then there was the question of the three miles, and at what point that provision should go in.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, in connection with Parliamentary elections the shorter the residence the better; but this was a different thing. Here they wanted a local administration, and there was no use putting on the Council a man who would be here to-day and there to-morrow. He was, therefore, in favour of a 12 mouths' residence qualification.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he hardly thought the difficulty about the word "adjoining" was a practical one. It was most desirable to make eligible many labourers and others who from lack of cottage accommodation were obliged to live outside, although their interests were all within, the parish. The case of School Boards was not analogous, as they were simply appointed to administer a compulsory law, whereas the Parish Council would have to decide whether expense was to be incurred and what work was to be done, or whether any was to be done at all. If there was any doubt about the three-mile limit they would have almost as much difficulty in this matter as if they used the word "adjoining." It would be a great hardship if the labourer, being a competent man, was in any way to suffer because of this. He was inclined to think that the word "adjoining" would meet the difficulty; but if they had three miles measured from the edge of the parish, with some months' residence as qualification, that might settle the question.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a very remarkable one. He took the case of an agricultural labourer who made his living in one parish and resided in another.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSwas understood to say he was referring to urban districts.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman went on to suggest

  1729
  that the labourer so situated should have a vote, not only in the parish in which he lived, hut in that in which he worked.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I did not say that he should have a vote in that way.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, the effect of the proposal, at any rate, would be to admit to the control of the Council of a rural parish outsiders who neither resided nor had any ratepaying interest whatever in it.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he did not mean to convey that the labourer in such a case should have a vote in the manner suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. What he said was that the labourer might live in a parish and have all his interests outside it. He might live in a rural district and he compelled to work in a village.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, the point was that, if the man was a ratepayer in a parish, they provided that he should be a Councillor there. But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley would admit to the Council outsiders—persons who had no ratepaying interest in the parish. Having regard to the powers proposed to be conferred upon these Councils—the large expenditure they might have to deal with, and the provisions in other respects—that seemed to him a strange proposal. He hoped the Government would adhere to the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appeared to him to be a very wise one. The qualification for the Councillorship should be based on the Parochial Register, with a residential period.
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, it would be better to settle one question first—that of the electoral roll and residence—and leave the Committee to deal with the other question again. It would be the safer way to take the Amendment in that form.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to be in favour of 12 months as against six, and that he agreed to the three-mile limit. He (Sir C. Dilke) would not press his objection to the 12 mouths' residence; but he would move to add to the Amendment words carrying into effect the three-miles extension.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, it would be better that they should dispose, in the
  1730
  first instance, of the Amendment to the Amendment as already moved
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Preston must withdraw his Amendment before any other alteration can be proposed.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to add—
  "Or persons who have, during the 12 months preceding the election, resided in the parish."
  MR. EVERETTsaid, he would draw the attention of the Committee to what they would be doing if they adopted this 12 months' provision. They were making ineligible for 18 months all farmers who moved out of one parish into another at Michaelmas. There were a great many parishes in which one farmer occupied nearly the whole of the land. That farmer might have been only six months in the parish when the annual meeting was held, and, according to the Amendment, it would be another 12 months before he would be qualified either to sit on its Council or to vote. Such a person would be a large ratepayer, and should be able to vote as soon as possible after he came into residence.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: He would be a ratepayer.
  MR. EVERETT: But he would not be on the Register, and your 12 months' residence condition would exclude him as a resident.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I move to add at the end of the last Amendment, "or within three miles thereof."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the words last inserted, to insert the words, "or within three miles thereof."—(Sir C. W. Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he hoped the Committee would not adopt the Amendment. The circumstances were different to those of the County Councils. It was true that every County Council elector resident within 14 miles of the boundary of the county was eligible to be elected

  1731
  if he could prove himself to be a ratepayer in the county. But in this case they had laid it down that the Parish Councillor should be an inhabitant of the parish, and they had added to that that he should have a residence in the parish. The words now proposed were inconsistent with the principle he understood the Committee to have laid down, that the Council should consist of residents in the parish, or persons immediately interested in the affairs of the parish. Their fundamental principle was residence or participation in the affairs of the parish. By departing from that, and adopting the municipal system, they would make it possible for a Council to be composed of men who had no interest in parochial matters. And a three-mile limit would offer a temptation to outsiders to get elected and override the views of the villagers. It might be said that the School Board system had worked well, but that was because outsiders had not largely taken advantage of their power. If they were to have good parochial administration, they must trust to those who lived in the parish, and who would be daily observers of what was going on. It was desirable that these parish affairs should be conducted economically, and he was sure no one was more strongly of that opinion than the right horn Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. Well, if they accepted this provision establishing a three-mile limit, they would add enormously to the cost of contested elections. People would come to offer themselves as candidates from outside, knowing that even if they were unsuccessful the cost would not fall upon themselves.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he must confess he did not agree with the hon. Member opposite, who seemed to attach too much importance to the Amendment. And he could not agree with the unfavourable view the hon. Member took of the probable result of the Amendment if adopted. There was no principle in what they had hitherto done in connection with the clause. They had adopted certain alternative qualifications, and had not come to the end of the alternatives they might be inclined to adopt. They had established the fact that to be a parochial elector was a qualification, and also that to be a parochial
  1732
  resident was a qualification, and now they were considering whether it was a qualification to be a close neighbour. He would venture to put before hon. Gentlemen opposite two or three cases in which it seemed to him eminently desirable that a neighbour should be qualified to be elected a Councillor in a parish, if the parishioners desired to make him one. They were dealing not with the question whether a neighbour should be a voter, but with the question whether he should be capable of being elected by the voters. Labourers had often to live just outside the boundary of the parish in which they worked and in whose affairs they were primarily interested, and surely it was desirable that such men should be eligible if the parishioners desired to put them on the Council. Then, there might be cases in which a farmer had his farm in one parish and his residence in another. In such cases, why should not the farmer be eligible to be elected to the Council of the parish in which his farm was situated.
  An hon. MEMBER: He would be. He would be an elector in both parishes.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was so. He was afraid the illustration he intended was not a sound one. But the personal knowledge of hon. Members would supply illustrations of persons living close to a parish and taking a neighbourly interest in its affairs, although they themselves were not electors in the parish. It must be remembered that they were not forcing these persons on the parochial electors, but merely giving the electors the right to choose them if they thought fit. The matter was not of the largest importance, but he thought the proposal one that should be accepted.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was for those who were in favour of the Amendment to give the instances the right hon. Gentleman referred to. None occurred to hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House where the Amendment would be of advantage or where the disadvantages would not outweigh the advantages. True, there might be cases where labourers took great interest in parishes, but were compelled to live elsewhere. But they would have the right to vote in the parishes in which they lived. In order to meet the contingent, academical cases that the right

  1733
  hon. Gentleman opposite could not define, they were asked to establish a new principle, and say that people who had no interest in the parish but lived a distance from it could be brought in by a political majority in order, it might be, to override the best interests of the place.
  SIR. C. W. DILKEsaid, the cases referred to were by no means hypothetical. In the County of Gloucester, as the Chairman of the County Council (Sir J. Dorington) who was sitting opposite knew, there was a hamlet situated in four parishes, a portion of the inhabitants of which had appealed to the County Council to create a new parish. The parishes covered enormous areas and contained villages that were miles away from the hamlet of which he spoke. It was clear that some of the inhabitants of the hamlet might be mixed up with the affairs of the other villages, and it would be a hardship to them to refuse the proposed Amendment. Another case he would mention was that of the parish of Newland, a large part of which had been taken away under the Divided Parishes Act. The inhabitants of the part which had been taken away were still interested in the charities of the old parish, and by refusing the Amendment the Committee would refuse those people the right to be elected on the Council of the old parish and, consequently, the right of a voice in the management of the charities.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that no doubt there were many similar cases to that mentioned by the right hon. Baronet throughout the length and breadth of the country. For the last four or five days gentlemen opposite had been upholding the doctrine of trusting the agricultural labourers with parish meetings. Well, could they not trust them to elect whom they thought proper? If the electors saw a man just across their border who might be most competent, suitable, and qualified to be on the Parish Council, hon. Gentlemen opposite would say to them—"You shall not be at liberty to choose that man." There was no such restriction in the case of County Councils or Municipal Councils. [Cries of "Yes!"] No; they had a limit of 15 miles in the case of the County Council.
  An hon. Member: He must be an elector.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the man must be rated in the district, but the area was different altogether. The original proposal of the Government was to give the electors a full and fair choice, and he did not think it was necessary to restrict their choice. The Amendment would secure that men residing in the neighbourhood should be elected, and, under the circumstances, the Government were willing to accept the proposal.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONthought that the area proposed in the Amendment was very large. He objected to giving facilities for the operations of "carpet baggers"—to enabling townsmen to be elected solely for their own purposes. People would put up as candidates to cultivate the parishioners in their own interest, and not in the interest of the parish. He wished to avoid the domination of country parishes by urban districts.
  MR. J. G. LAWSONsaid, there appeared to be an idea that extending the area throe miles would bring in the agricultural labourer, but the argument was the other way. It would tend to keep him out, and the man who would be let in would be the one living in a town three miles from the parish who owned a trap and could drive backwards and forwards to the village.
  SIR J. DORINGTONsaid, it was true the cases referred to by the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke) were hard cases, but they could not legislate exactly for hard cases. The question for them to consider was what was the most consistent and the best course to take; and he was bound to say he considered that the person who sat on the Parish Council should either be a resident in the parish or an elector. They should trust to time to cure such difficulties as the right hon. Baronet had alluded to. It was clear that when a parish was divided, the inhabitants in each division would not have the same voice in the management of the whole parish that they had before. The fear on the Opposition side of the House was that if the Amendment were accepted a parish might be swept by an urban population. That they wished to avoid.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that before the Committee went to a Division he wished

  1735
  to recall to its recollection the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had expressed his preference for a 12 months' residential qualification over a six months' qualification. Now, forsooth, it was not to be a question of residence at all, but everyone who resided within three miles of the parish was to be allowed to come in.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No; the Amendment will read—
  "Persons who have, during the 12 months preceding the election, resided in the parish or within three miles thereof."
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid it down in the clearest language that what was desired was a long residence in the parish. Surely the present Amendment was going in the teeth of that.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that if the Amendment were agreed to fully, half the rural parishes of the country would be dominated by urban populations. He should, therefore, vote against the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 115.—(Division List, No. 332.)
  Question,
  "That the words 'be chosen from among the parochial electors of that parish or persons who have, during the 12 months preceding the election, resided in the parish, or within three miles thereof, and shall' be there inserted,"
  put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. G. LAWSONsaid, he wished to move to add to the end of the Amendment just inserted the words—
  "But no person shall be qualified to be elected to or to be a member of more than one Parish Council, unless he is a parochial elector in each of the said parishes."
  If this Amendment had been before the Committee half an hour ago it would have been saved a great deal of discussion. The effect of allowing people who were not closely connected with a parish to sit on a Parish Council would be that in the scattered rural districts surrounding small towns men from these towns would get themselves elected on a number of Councils, and go round spreading mischief in every direction.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add at the end of the last Amendment the words, "But no person shall be qualified to be elected to or to be a member of more than
  1736
  one Parish Council, unless he is a parochial elector in each of the said parishes."—(Mr. J. G. Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEwas understood to say that he could not see the necessity for all these restrictions. The electors in the parishes would be men of common sense, and if people went amongst them for the purpose of being elected to the councils in order to do mischief there, why should not the parishioners elect them if they chose?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Government could not assent to the Amendment. They believed the inhabitants of the parishes were people of common sense, and that these cumbrous safeguards were unnecessary in their interests
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had not given the Amendment the attention it deserved. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had made an appeal to the Committee in connection with a peculiar instance of hardship, in the case of a man living on four cross roads in various parishes, but he (Mr. Brodrick) did not think the right hon. Baronet intended, and he was sure the Committee did not intend, to set up a body of professional Parish Councillors who would go out from a town situated in the midst of a number of parishes and get themselves elected for those parishes.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I would call attention to the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the full effect of a hastily drawn Amendment which does not appear on the Paper. This Amendment should come on as a proviso at the end of the sub-section.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he wished to move to omit "five" in order to insert "six." His object was to provide, by later Amendment, that one-third of the Parish Council should retire every year instead of the whole of the members, as proposed in the Bill. The proposal of the Bill would destroy continuity of policy on the Councils, and lead to confusion. It might be said

  1737
  that the Guardians had to go out every year, but they had a different class of work to perform. A Parish Council might decide to adopt one of the adoptive Acts or to undertake any other business, but before they had proceeded far in what they had taken in hand, or, at all events, before they had completed it, the members might go out in a body. Those who were elected might be out of sympathy with the policy of their predecessors, and so continual changes of policy might occur. The members of District Councils under the Bill had three years in Office, and a third of them went out every year. It would be better, in the interests of uniformity and in the interests of business, if the same plan were adopted in regard to Parish Councils. He feared that one result of the plan adopted in the Bill would be that in the case of a large parish where a Council could afford to have paid officials the whole business would be left in the hands of those officials instead of in those, of the Councillors themselves. If a third of the Councillors went out every year an indication would be obtained at least once a year of public opinion with regard to the policy the Parish Council should adopt.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 26, to leave out the word "five," and insert the word "six."—(Mr. J. Cullings.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'five' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: My right hon. Friend has correctly stated that this is the first of a series of Amendments, the object of which is to alter the mode of election which the Bill proposes. Our proposal is that there should be an annual election of the whole of the members of a Parish Council, and that they should all go out of Office together. My right hon. Friend proposes that we should follow the example of the Municipal Corporations and the District Councils, and provide that one-third of the members should go out every year. I am in this unfortunate position, that I have expressed views in favour of the principle advocated by my right hon. Friend, having endeavoured in vain to convince the House that they should adopt it when County Councils were established. I then thought, and I still think, that it would have been better if one-third of the members of
  1738
  the County Councils had gone out every year. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] I am not saying that I was right five years ago; it may have been my folly. I hold that opinion still, however. I also think that it would be desirable, if public opinion were able to be brought more frequently to bear on School Boards than is the case at present. That, however, is ancient history. Parliament has decided that County Councils should go out as a whole every three years, and that School Boards should do the same. I think that in view of the smallness of the constituency a Parish Council will possess, it would not, on the whole, be the best plan to divide it into three groups and to have an election of one-third of the members every year. The class of electors who will have votes for Parish Councils is not so familiar with the system advocated by my right hon. Friend as with that of annual elections, and I think it would appear to the electors that three years would be a very long period to wait before having the opportunity of changing the whole of their representatives. So far as continuity is concerned, I think that the closer the touch between the parish meeting and the Parish Council in these matters the better. Though I frankly confess that I have very strong leanings in the direction of the Amendment, I think it will be wiser to adhere to the proposals of the Bill than to have an annual meeting.
  MR. J. LOWTHERthought that this was a case in which the right hon. Gentleman might be invited to act upon his original judgment. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have been a little led astray in his observations respecting the County Council precedent, as be did not appear to recollect that those bodies were elected by single-membered constituencies. It was impossible to apply that system to the case of the Parish Councils. The constituencies that would be created under this Bill were more on all-fours with those created under the Municipal Corporations Act. In the interests of continuity in the administration of parish affairs the right hon. Gentleman's pesonal judgment was to be preferred to that of those whose opinions had outweighed his for the moment. There was no risk under the system proposed in the Amend-

  1739
  ment of having a Board swept away in its entirety, and of having an entirely new one put in its place. It might sometimes happen that even the most conscientious and enlightened Local Authority might incur some phenomenal unpopularity by doing that which it regarded as its duty, and it was certainly desirable that some continuity should be secured.
  MR. FULLERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he would give a certain discretion to the County Council as to the fixing of the number of Councillors who were to be elected in each parish?
  MR. RATHBONEwas of opinion that it would be well to adopt a system lying midway between the two now before the Committee, and to have the whole of the members of the Parish Council elected every two years. Experience both in this and in other countries indicated that the more elections were multiplied the less interest people took in them. The smaller the parish also the greater the burden that would be placed upon it by repeated elections.
  COMMANDER BETHELLtook the view that the parish meeting ought to have the power of kicking out the Parish Council every year if it desired to do so.
  MR. J. L. WHARTONsaid, he shuddered at the expense of carrying out this Bill. If there was to be in every parish, as there would be in every fighting parish, if he might use the term, an election every year, the expense would be enormous even if the cost were placed on the lowest scale. The last contested County Council election in Durham cost £2,600. He trusted that the Committee would agree to have the Parish Councils elected every three years instead of every year. The expense of having a third of the members elected every year would be much the same as that of having the whole elected every year.
  MR. PICTONsaid, the Committee seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the custom had long existed in parishes of electing certain officers once a year. The misfortune hitherto had been that the elections which took place at the annual Easter Vestries did not declare the popular voice. Whilst
  1740
  he saw very grave reasons for making considerable changes in the government of the parish, he saw no reason for changing that ancient and immemorial custom by which the parishes had been in the habit of electing certain persons every year.
  MR. HANBURYwas very glad to support the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in his view of ancient and immemorial custom. He thought that one good reason for the proposal of the Government was that the people in the parishes had been accustomed to elect their officers every year. He did not believe that the expenses would be reduced if the elections were to take place every three years. If a man were elected for one year only he would be bound to keep in touch with his constituents, and in all probability there would be no contest at the end of the year; but if he were elected for three years there would be certain to be a contest at the end of the period. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) had not only the faults of the Amendment which proposed an election every three years, but, as a third of the members would under it have to go out every year, it would have the disadvantageous result of an election every year.
  MR. H. LAWSONsaid, there was another reason, which was quite as good as the economical one, for rejecting the Amendment, and that was the educative reason. Hon. Gentlemen had talked about the necessity of having parish meetings in order to give the people every opportunity of learning how their own local government was conducted. Certainly they would not have much opportunity, or much interest, in doing so unless they had an election every year.
  MR. TAYLORsaid, he sincerely hoped the Government would be able to take some steps towards reducing the number of the elections. An uncontested election for a School Board cost £11; there were 700 parishes in Norfolk, and if there were an uncontested election every year it would mean an expense of at least £7,000, whilst what a contested election would cost he did not know. He hoped an arrangement would be made under which all these elections would take place in the same day. This might be a means of diminishing the expense,

  1741
  which was really anticipated with aversion and dread by all the county ratepayers.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that as his proposal did not appear to be received with general favour, he would ask leave to withdraw it. At the same time, he still believed it was a correct proposition.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the Amendment he next had to propose was one he put forward in the interests of local administration. Many hon. Members who were interested in this subject felt that the great danger in the future would be the absence of connecting links between the different Local Bodies.
  MR. CHANNING: We do not want ex officio connecting links.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE,continuing, said, his Amendment did not propose ex officio connecting links, as usually the term was understood. It was intended to deal with the case of a person who had already undergone popular election in a larger and more important constituency, and to ensure that a person who had been elected a District Councillor should have of right a seat on the Parish Council for his own parish. Under the old system many people of experience served on several public bodies, to the benefit and more harmonious co-operation of them all. No doubt hon. Members near him would object to the mode in which it was proposed to confer this right on District Councillors, but, in the interests of local administration, it was desirable in the case of Parish Councils to obtain the services of all the available local ability, and if members of the County and District Councils were able to sit in the Parish Council, they would be able to remove misunderstandings between the larger and smaller Public Bodies, and to smooth away those jealousies which the experience of the past few years had shown were likely to arise between the County Councils on the one hand and the smaller boards on the other. Under the new system created by this Bill, there would be much greater danger of friction and misunderstanding unless something was done to prevent it. The difficulty in many parishes would be to get sufficient local
  1742
  men for the work to be done. His Amendment might be too widely framed, but he would willingly withdraw it if the Government would promise favourable consideration to the simpler plan to be proposed with the same object by the hon. Member for Leominster. He was confident that, if some such plan were adopted, it would make the administrative machine work more smoothly, and prevent misunderstandings arising between the different bodies.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 26, at end, insert "every member of the County Council of the administrative county, and every member of the District Council of the rural district within which the parish is situate, shall, if he resides within or is a parochial elector of the parish and is not an elected Parish Councillor, be by virtue of his office an additional Parish Councillor."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I quite appreciate the object of my hon. Friend in moving this Amendment, but I am bound to say that the means employed to give effect to it are not good. Though I should like to have a much stronger connecting link than at present between County Councils and District Councils, I cannot accept the Amendment with reference to Parish Councils. The hon. Member proposes that every member of the County Council is to be an ex officio member of the Parish Council in which he may be a parochial elector. The meaning of this is that a large owner of property who is an Alderman will be an ex officio Parish Councillor of every parish in which he owns any land. That is not a proposition which I think the House can accept; nor would it be desirable on other grounds. If a gentleman who is already on the County Council has the position and the time to be a member of the Parish Council, and possesses the confidence of the inhabitants, he is certain to be elected; but there would be a great difficulty in making him an ex officio member. There are now in England about 4,000 County Councillors, and I hope the result of this Bill will be that we shall have 9,000 or 10,000 Parish Councils. But under the proposal of the hon. Member there will be many Parish Councils containing more than one ex

  1743
  officio Councillor, while a number of other Parish Councils will have none at all. My hon. Friend further proposes that every member of a District Council in a rural district shall also be an ex officio member. One of the duties which we have imposed on Parish Councils, in response to the general feeling in the rural district, is that they are to have the power to complain of District Councils to the County Council. I know that there has been, and there is, a very great neglect of sanitary duties in the rural sanitary districts of the country. I know from Medical Reports cases where the Rural Sanitary Authority will not do, its duty, and where the villages are suffering in water supply, drainage, and in all the sanitary conditions of life because the Rural Sanitary Authority decline to act. The Bill provides that Parish Councils shall have the power of appealing to the County Councils; and if they have the power, I believe they will in time rectify this state of things. But it would be most undesirable to have ex officio representatives outvoting the elected representatives of the parish in such a case. We must adhere to the principle that those shall sit on the Parish Council—and only those—who possess the confidence of the electors.
  MR. RANKINsaid, he ventured to point out to the President of the Local Government Board that District Councillors would be elected by the parish electors, that they would have the interests of the parish at heart, and would probably represent the parish. His belief, therefore, was that they would act rather in the opposite direction to that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. It was eminently desirable that the Parish and District Councils should know each other's wishes, especially in regard to sanitary work, and that there should be continuity of policy. Therefore, although the Amendment went in the direction of overloading the Parish Councils, he thought that the idea was a good one, and he would support it if it were pressed to a Division. He hoped, however, the Government would see its was to adopt some kind of connecting link between the County, District, and Parish Councils.
  MR. RATHBONEsaid, he did not quite agree with the arguments of the President of the Local Government
  1744
  Board. He desired to point out that the object aimed at by the hon. Member might be better secured by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leominster, which was much more limited in its scope, as it did not apply to County Councillors, and would prevent any possibility of the Parish Councillors being outvoted. As a practical measure connecting the Parish Councils with the District Councils, this would be a most valuable Amendment. It would make the Parish and District Councils more united, and so far from detracting from the power of the Parish Councils would give them additional influence on the District Councils. He hoped, however, that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had hardly done justice to the practical value of this proposal. It was a mistake to suppose that the County and District Councillors would be opposed to the elective element on the Parish Councils. They would, on the contrary, be the representatives of the smaller body on the larger bodies; and if hon. Members wanted to see the County Authorities harmoniously work together, this end could not be better achieved than by making County and District Councillors members of the Parish Councils.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would resist the Amendment, or anything of the same nature, because it would not be to the advantage of the Parish Council to have the Olympians descending upon it whenever they chose. If there was to be any ex officio interference it should be in an opposite direction, and the Parish Councillor should have a right to sit on the District Council. They ought not to give the County or District Councillor a right to dictate to the Parish Council.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he could quite understand that that part of the Amendment which referred to County Councillors was not acceptable, but the case was somewhat different as regarded the District Councillors. It was worthy of consideration whether some means could not be devised whereby District and Parish Councils could be brought closer together

  1745
  in certain matters, as, for instance, sanitary questions.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had admitted that the object aimed at by the Amendment was a desirable one. Why, then, did he not devise some means of attaining it? In future, if a public-spirited, hard-working man wished to serve the interests of his parish or Union he would have to go through the intolerable burden of three separate elections, and that would prove a serious bar to the exercise of public spirit. However, after what had been said, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, after line 26, to insert the words "(2) No person shall be disqualified by sex or marriage for being elected or being a member of a Parish Council."—(Mr. H H. Fowler.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, he had put down on the Paper as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment (page 2, after line 26), line 2, after "member," insert "or chairman." He should like to know from the President of the Local Government Board whether it was necessary to insert this Amendment in order to make it clear that women were eligible for election as Chairman of a Parish Council?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he bad been advised that his right hon. Friend's proposed Amendment was not necessary in order to effect that purpose, as women would be eligible for election to the chair of a Parish Council if his own Amendment were carried.
  SIR H. JAMESsaid, that it was proposed by this Amendment to make married women living with their husbands within three miles of the parish eligible for service on the Parish Council. That meant that a married man and his wife would be qualified to sit together on a Parish Council. He thought that was carrying the thing much further than the Committee contemplated, when they assented to the proposal of the Government to allow married women who were duly qualified to vote on the Parish Council elections. Now, women would even be able to pre-
  1746
  side if elected to the chair. What would be the duty of a married woman who should be elected on a Council together with her husband? She, of course, would have to obey and act as her husband wished. [Laughter.] He was not joking. Was the wife to get up and say to the husband, "I set you at defiance; I take a different view on this question, and I intend to vote differently?" Opposition by the wife to her husband in the Council would lead to scandalous scenes. Let them imagine the position of a woman who, being in the chair, might have to rule her husband out of order. If she directed him to sit down he could refuse to do so, but if he should tell her to sit down she was be und to obey. Then a man would not only be able to bring his wife on a Parish Council, but all his daughters also. That would enable rich and powerful men to exercise exceptional influence on the Council. If this Amendment were agreed to, an unanswerable argument would be supplied to those who wanted all the political power enjoyed by men given to women. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would put married women side by side with their husbands on the same Boards, thus giving a paramount power to married couples. Against a proposal of this kind he emphatically protested.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The argument of the right hon. and learned Member reminds me of the argument formerly used by the opponents of the Bill to allow marriage with a deceased wife's sister. The opponents of that measure at one time argued as if it would compel every widower to marry his deceased wife's sister. In the same way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken on the assumption that, if the Amendment under consideration were carried, it would be compulsory on every man to get his wife elected on the Parish Council. For my part, I lam content to trust the electors, as we have already trusted them in the matter of the School Boards, to exercise a wise choice. I may remind the Committee that some of the best administrators of School Boards, and some of the best Guardians now in England are married ladies. Everyone who knows anything of the administration of the Poor Law must know what a great advantage it would be to have ladies—and especially married ladies—

  1747
  members of Boards of Guardians. At the present moment there is a doubt whether married women are qualified to be Guardians, but, like my predecessors in the Local Government board, I have always declined to express any opinion on that point. I am always delighted when married women are elected as Guardians, and I believe I have myself nominated married ladies to these positions. The proposal of the Government is that for Parish Councils there shall be no disqualification by sex or marriage; and that if the parochial electors should wish to have a young lady or an old lady, a single lady or a married lady, on their Council, they should have the right to place her in that position. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said about a married woman calling her husband to order, or voting according to her husband's behests, is amusing persiflage. But that is not the spirit in which to approach this great measure of reform. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in opposing this plan for permitting married women to take a share in Parish Council work is very much behind the times.
  SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid that he had voted with the hon. Member for Crewe the other day to put married women in the same position as single women, so far as the election of Parish Councils was concerned; and the Committee had adopted that view. But he was not in favour of the proposal to permit married, or even single, women to act as Chairmen of any Board. His experience of women made him doubt whether they would be impartial in the chair. There was in women a want of the logical faculty, or the even faculty, which incapacitated them from distributing fair justice between all parties concerned. He therefore thought that women would not make good Chairmen of these bodies, and he would like to see a clause inserted in the Bill specifically stating that no woman should be elected Chairman of a Parish Council. He had heard that not long ago at a meeting of women one of their number quoted Sir J. Lubbock as a financial authority, but she was immediately rebuked by the lady in the chair, who said that they were not going to be interfered with by men. In fact, a woman would be anything but impartial in the chair. The position of ladies on
  1748
  Boards of Guardians was quite different. He had had the honour of being a member of a Board, of which a lady was a very useful and valuable member. But she was not Chairman, and he did not think anyone would wish to put her into the chair. He believed that women would have in some districts influence which would enable them to get elected as Chairmen, and he therefore intended to propose an Amendment declaring women to be ineligible for the position.
  SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he would agree that, as a general rule, it was not desirable that ladies should preside over these Boards. But there might be cases in which the contrary would be very wise, and he thought the proper course was to leave those elected to a Council to decide whether or not it was necessary in particular cases to have a woman to preside. The hon. Baronet who had last spoken had said that women would be partial. It should be borne in mind that they had also heard of men being partial before now. Did not a Chief Magistrate once say that during his year of office he would strive neither to be partial nor impartial? The chief argument against the proposal was that there was some sort of idea that it would lead to the creation of fagot votes. But it was not done as a general rule, under the present joint occupation, which enabled it to be done in favour of sons, because, first, as a general rule people would not take the trouble of going through such a process; and, secondly, because it would not be right, and therefore people would not do it generally.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he hoped that the Amendment would not be passed in this off-hand manner. This Bill was an experiment, and would it be wise, he asked, to complicate the experiment by agreeing to this Amendment? Those who relied on the good work done by women on School Boards and Boards of Guardians overlooked the fact that the duties performed by those bodies were essentially different from the duties which Parish Councils would discharge. Here the proposal was that women should be made eligible to occupy the position of administrators, and to that he objected. If they allowed women to become members of these Elected be dies they would inevitably be asked to

  1749
  grant women still greater electoral privileges.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Committee were in the strange position of being asked to say that women should be capable of being elected on Parish Councils before it had been decided whether or not women should be electors. That seemed to him to be putting the cart before the horse. He objected strongly to proposals to drag ladies into public life. They had been reproached with indulging in persiflage in discussing this subject. But it was impossible to do it in any other way, because there were moral and physical reasons why women were unfitted to become members of these Boards, which the Committee could not properly enter into very fully, as there were strangers present. As yet no woman had been qualified to take an active prominent part in public life.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: The Queen.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he held that it was altogether inadvisable to introduce women into public life; but if it was to be done, it should be done as the assertion of a great principle on sufficient grounds, and not incidentally and episodically, as by the present Amendment.
  MR. H. PLUNKETTsaid, that one of the States of the American Union had established women's suffrage, and recognised the political and legal equality of the sexes. Having lived in that State for some years, he had had some experience of the question. One thing he noticed was that the fears which were expressed as to women unduly pushing themselves into public or official life were unfounded. For some reason, which he as a bachelor could not explain, it was found that as a rule women did not vote for female candidates, and it was a curious compensation that women's suffrage seemed to keep women out of public life. He admitted that women in public life sometimes displayed qualities which he might describe as "sweet unreasonableness," but he had never known a case in which it gave rise to any domestic disturbance. He had heard it stated that political differences were the only domestic trouble that no State of the Union had ever allowed to be good ground for divorce. In the State of Wyoming, to which he referred, he was well acquainted with a female Justice of
  1750
  the Peace, who discharged her duties and sometimes her revolver, when necessary, with considerable effect. He knew of only one case in which it was generally agreed that woman had rather outstepped her proper sphere, and that was when she was appointed upon juries. The practice was discontinued, it was said, on the complaint of a man who said he had been left at home to mind the baby while his wife was locked up all night with 11 good men and true. However, when confined to their proper sphere, especially when acting on School Boards, there could be no question about it that women were less corrupt and far more attentive to their duties than the ordinary frontier male officer. He therefore saw no objection to the Amendment. He believed that women were only likely to get into public life to such an extent, and at such times, as their services and qualifications merited.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, that his experience was that the admission of women to Public Bodies in the American States was confined to Wyoming, to which the hon. Member for South Dublin had referred. It was proposed by this Amendment that every woman, rich or poor, young or old, living within three miles of a parish should be eligible for election on the Council of that parish simply and solely because she was a woman, for that was the only qualification. Life would, indeed, be sad and dreary without women, but the Committee was asked to take too serious a step in making women eligible for these offices.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he thought the Committee were entering on a very important change with a somewhat light heart. He feared they were throwing down the wall that excluded women from office, and were taking the first step towards enabling women to take part in all elections and in all offices. But if they carefully guarded themselves against being supposed to be desirous of going any further, he thought that in this exceptional case the concession might be made. He confessed that he looked with more fear on the suggestion that women might be elected to act as Chairmen of the Parish Councils; but, on the whole, he was inclined to leave the matter to the good sense of the parishes themselves. Therefore he, for his part, was not disposed to object to this Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. TOMLINSONrose, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. TOMLINSON*MR. TOMLINSON moved the following Amendment:—
  In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three years."
  The term of office for a Parish Councillor as the Bill stood was one year, and the object of the Amendment was to change this and make it three years. He said it seemed as if the framers of the Bill had fixed their eyes on the cases of the small parishes where the parish work was in a small area; but this provision might also apply to large parishes, where the concerns might not be simply agricultural pursuits, but other matters. No doubt there were in all parts of the country people who lived upon elections, and who were never happy unless an election was going on. But there were many—and they would not be the least useful members of these Local Bodies— who looked upon elections as, at the best, a necessary evil, and a thing of which they might easily have too much. In the case of a village where there was a strong difference of opinion as to the policy to be pursued on some important matter the feeling would run high, and each year, as the election time came round, the parish would be plunged into the turmoil of a fresh election, and the angry feelings which an election gave rise to would hardly have subsided before another election would come on. This would have the effect of seriously interfering with business engagements. It was an evil at the present time in many Municipalities that business had to be interrupted in order that those who took an interest in making their Municipalities as perfect as possible should devote their attention to the elections. But in the case of the Parish Councils there was not to be only a retirement of part of the members, but the whole body was to be re-constituted every year. What would be the result of such a system where there was a distinct policy in course of operation which had not terminated in the year—some sanitary scheme or water scheme—and there was a
  1752
  strong difference of opinion about it? They would have a body formed for one year; then came a contested election, and probably the whole body of the Council would be turned out and a fresh body take its place, with different ideas of what ought to be done, and with different views for carrying out their object. Could that have any other result than to cause additional expense, and possibly disaster, to the objects intended to be carried out? Then there was the question of the expense of continual elections. Where feeling ran high there would be contests, and there would be the necessary cost of the poll, which would have to come out of the rates, and the additional expense would be a serious matter in the case of the poor parishes. Why should an election be gone through every year in every parish? It was possible to provide some means by which, if a parish were dissatisfied with their Council, they could bring about an election. There could, for instance, be a referendum to a parish meeting. A parish meeting could be summoned which could have power given to it to call the electors together and require a new election. It was casting an unnecessary amount of trouble and expense on these parishes to require the election of a fresh body in each year, and on this ground he begged to move the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 27, to leave out the words "one year," and insert the words "three years."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the effect of the Amendment was to make the term of office for Parish Councillors three years instead of one. He had no doubt that technically the hon. Member was in Order in moving the Amendment, but he would ask whether the House did not practically unanimously resolve—no Division being taken or challenged— that they would not interfere with the scheme of the Bill—namely, that there should be an annual election to the Parish Council, in order that the members should be in touch with the parish meeting, and the constituents should have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the conduct of the

  1753
  Council annually? He could not accent this Amendment. If he had had any desire to proceed in this direction he should have accepted the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bordesley, which would have enabled public opinion to be brought to bear—not in a satisfactory mode — once in every year. He agreed with the remark of the hon. Gentleman's colleague (Mr. Hanbury) that that Amendment of the right hon. Member for Bordesley would have rendered an election absolutely certain every year. When the Parish Councils got to work and understood its business, its members would possess the confidence of the electors, and he did not think there would be any such constant repetition of elections as the hon. Member seemed to anticipate.
  MR. WHARTONwished to state one or two reasons why he thought this proposition was a most desirable one to accept. To begin with, the expenses of elections might be considerably lessened if they were all held on the same day. County Council elections took place once every three years, and District and Parish Council elections might also be held once in three years, and they could then have them all on the same day, which would result in considerably lessening the expenses. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board said he did not fear that there would be any considerable amount of expenses incurred by this Bill. He hoped and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make good that contention before the discussions concluded. For these elections they must have the ordinary electoral machinery of the ballot—which was a costly machinery—and the expenses which were necessarily attendant on elections would be considerable. He believed if the ratepayers were consulted they would much rather have the election once in three years than every year. Again, they wanted to get the best men they could, who would give up their time for the sake of their parish and district. He believed they would get such men if they only had the prospect of a contest once in three years rather than if they had to subject themselves
  1754
  to the trouble, harass, and annoyance of a contested election every year. More than that, if they agreed to make the period three years they would get men of experience in these matters. How much would a man learn in regard to parish matters if they only allowed him 12 months' experience of them? His right hon. Friend said they would not have a frequent occurrence of these elections. He remembered Mr. Ritchie saying the same thing in regard to the County Councils, but he had experienced the very converse. In his own northern county the election for the County Council had been made a political election instead of an election for the good of the county. The result had been that the county had been put to great expense, and some of the best men in the whole county put oft' the Council. He believed that such a state of affairs might prevail in these elections as well as in the County Councils. If the Government would accept the Amendment, it would, he was sure, be attended with good results, for they would get men of experience well trained in their work, who would subject themselves to an election once in three years, but who would not subject themselves to the harass and worry of an annual election, whilst, at the same time, the expenses would be considerably diminished.
  MR. CHANNINGdid not agree with the contention of the hon. Member who had last spoken as to annual elections leading to the best men not taking their share in parochial work. He would like to point out to his right hon. Friend one consideration. In the School Boards the term of service was three years, which gave a continuity to the policy, and in the same way there might be a continuity of policy given by some such Amendment as this to the Parish Council, so that there might be power of carrying out a definite policy which might he prejudiced under the annual elections. A night or two ago his right hon. Friend made a concession to the hon. Baronet the Member for Somersetshire in reference to the extinction of Parish Councils under the 200 limit of population by the parish meeting. The question he now wished to put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether, in drawing the pro-

  1755
  posal to meet the concession he had made to the hon. Member for Somersetshire, he would so safeguard the interests of these small Parish Councils as to give them a guarantee that they would have a fair chance of carrying out their policy, on whatever parish question they might have taken up, without being driven out of their position by this hasty vote of the parish meeting? He hoped they should have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the annual elections would not be complicated by some further weakening of the continuity of the policy of the Parish Councils in these very small parishes.
  MR. W. LONGexpressed the hope that the President of the Local Government Board would give this matter further consideration. He would point out that the position of things had been altered by the last Amendment they had added to the Bill. He believed that in the greater number of cases the parochial electors would be thoroughly well able to take care of their own interests, and he was confident, if the President of the Local Government Board had seen his way to confine the choice of members of these Councils to those who were either parochial electors or resident in the parish, there would be very little difficulty. But the position had immensely altered, and that was not the question now. The hon. Member for Preston, in moving his Amendment, based his contention very largely and properly upon the question of expense. He and the hon. Member for Ripon had dwelt on the desirability that there should be as little as possible in the shape of extravagance in reference to local elections. He was satisfied that the experience of the future would prove the truth of the views they held on that (the Opposition) side of the House, that the admission which the House had made of strangers into parochial elections would very seriously affect the number of elections they would have to hold. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: No.] The right hon. Gentleman said no, but the experience of all those who had lived in a particular class of rural parishes did not, he believed, vary, no matter in what qearter of the House hon. Members might sit. The President of
  1756
  the Local Government Board had two great difficulties to deal with: He had, first, to apply conditions which must be similar to actually dissimilar communities, as there are two classes of parishes. The Amendment just adopted would multiply the number of contested elections in the villages surrounding the towns. It would be possible to minimise the resulting evils—the expense, for example—by accepting this Amendment to make the elections for three years, and another Amendment to give to the parish meeting the right if they chose to terminate the existence of the Parish Council. By this means they would secure continuity of policy and the better administration that accompanied it. Certain very important duties were provided for by the Bill. It would take the Councils some time to learn their business. They would not undertake any important work if they knew that they might be superseded at the end of the year and a stop put to the work they had initiated by a reversal of policy by their successes. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a case when the policy of a London Board of Guardians was reversed in this way owing to a new election and of the delay that was the result. There were many cases of the sort in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. If they agreed to this the result would be that a Council might be turned out before it had settled down to business. The Council should, and he thought would, become a permanent body; but it was desirable they should provide for a continuity of policy. This was a matter of more importance than appeared at first sight. It was important that they should clothe these authorities with importance and dignity, and they could not do anything more mischievous than to have repeated elections. He lived within three miles of a very large town, with parishes all round, and he thought the class to which he belonged, the squires, though they were often represented as tyrants, would acquire from the Amendment adopted an increase of influence which would allow some of them to stand for half-a-dozen places. It would, however, have the disadvantage of throwing open the elections to men who had no locus standi, whose candidature would cost

  1757
  them nothing, and who would not suffer in any way if they were defeated. It was, therefore, advisable to limit the number of contested elections and the money that would be wasted upon them. By this means they would be laying the foundation for something better in the future. It was desirable that real power should he given in the case of the villages and towns concerned, and that they could do by adopting the suggestion which he laid before the Government.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had larger experience in these matters than he had; but he had some experience, and he had arrived at conclusions the reverse of those just expressed, both as to continuity of policy and the frequency of contested elections, and the cost of the work that would be undertaken by Parish Councils. If he had a fear, it was that they would err on the side of excessive economy rather than they would do too much.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he was not talking of that. What was to be done with regard to the waste of money on contested elections?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the expenses of the elections would be smaller than the hon. Gentleman expected. Under the County Council supervision they would be very trivial, and the machinery would be altogether different from that used in larger elections. There would not be an expensive staff of lawyers, and the expenses of the returning officer ought not to be more than a few shillings. There were two principles—vital principles— from which the Government could not depart. One was that they were giving to the electors of a certain area representative institutions, and they must give them fully, freely, and frankly, without attempting any restrictions which they did not apply elsewhere. They could not subject a representative body to the control of the electorate to be exercised even during that year of office which the hon. Gentleman said would be too short to carry out a specific policy. No difficulty was found in working Boards of Guardians and Rural Sanitary Authorities, which were elected annually. There was marvellous continuity in the re-election of men who had won the confidence of the ratepayers. He knew of
  1758
  cases in Staffordshire and elsewhere where there were very few contests. That applied to the County Councils as well as other bodies. It would be no disadvantage, if the policy of a Parish Council were much discussed, that it should be subject to annual review, and if it were too expensive, that it should be modified or discontinued. He had great respect for the views of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Long), but upon these two points the Government had definitely made up their minds. They must adhere to the principle that the elections should be annual. They could not agree to any Amendment which would cause interference with the freedom of action that these Representative Bodies should have One hon. Member said he had made a concession already in this direction. He had not made any concession. What he had done was in accordance with his original plan. He agreed that any parish containing over 100 should have a Parish Council if it desired, and that the parish meeting should have the same freedom of choice in the creation and removal of the Council. He thought they might now proceed to a decision upon this question. The matter had been discussed with very great fairness. The Government had arrived at the conclusion he had stated, and he thought he might ask the Committee to take a decision at once, or to be content with what had already been done.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the continuity of officers in the County Councils, but he must remember that they were elected upon a single-member principle, and, while the electors might agree in such cases, it could not be assumed that it would be similar in the case of Parish Councils. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken also of the case of the Guardians, who were, he said, elected once a year; but be would point out that, according to a paper issued by the right hon. Gentleman himself within the last few weeks, there were many cases of triennial elections. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had had eleven applications for triennial, instead of annual, elections. He took a poll, and seven out of ten of the places had decided for a triennial

  1759
  election. Seven hundred and eighty-eight rural parishes and 159 parts of rural parishes had triennial elections. Then as to the cost of elections, it was impossible that the expense could be covered by a few shillings. There were the preliminary notices, the constructing of polling stations, the necessity for having officers and clerks. He (Mr. Lawson) could make up a cost of £5 before very long. Yet the right hon. Gentleman said it would only cost a few shillings!
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he referred only to the returning officer's fee, and he considered that any returning officer in a village would he well paid if he got a few shillings.
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, he was afraid he misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman; but a man who conducted an election and ran the risk he did could not be expected to do it for a few shillings. He did not think they would get many who would sit in a station from 8 in the morning until 8 in the evening for nothing. If there were such men, they were few and far between.
  MR. STOREYsaid, apart from the question of expense, it was desirable that the Parish Councils should he elected from year to year. He believed the expense would be very small. If he thought the question of expense would be a serious one he would hesitate before saying that; but he was satisfied the expense could not be large. The Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton) had referred to the enormous cost of these elections. His hon. Friend was concerned in the work of county government, and he (Mr. Storey) thought he could convince him, and through him the Committee, that there was some way of minimising the expense of elections. There should be no multiplication of elections. They should have all the elections—for the parish, district, and county—on the same day.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Every three years.
  MR. STOREYsaid, they might differ as to that; but they could hold them as they did the elections in America, three ballot papers being given to each elector—red, white, and blue paper,
  1760
  if they liked—so that the votes might be taken from the same ballot-box and counted at the same time.
  MR. WHARTONsaid, he had been advocating the holding of all elections on the same day.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he knew they would not differ with regard to the means of reducing the cost of elections. If they looked at the matter in that light they would see that with the adoption of this principle the expense would be much reduced. They would not in a village of 500 population and 100 electors require everything that would be necessary in a large election.
  An hon. MEMBER: Yes; it is in the Bill.
  MR. STOREYsaid, it was not in the Bill. One hundred votes was a small matter. He would be ready to take the poll in any village with 2,000 people in the County of Durham for a £5 note. If they told him that would be expensive he did not agree at all. It was said that the County Council elections last time in Durham cost £2,200; but then they had a great controversy going on—they had in the Radical County of Durham a Tory Council, and they had to fight for their rights. All that was not likely to occur again. He would remind his hon. Friend who spoke on this subject that there were 37 contested elections on that occasion, and that the total cost, apart from returning officers' fees and such items, was only £197. If the elections were conducted under ordinary conditions, they would not have such expense. They would probably be able to get a returning officer who would sit for nothing. In that way, he thought, they could conduct an election for a £5 note in the smaller villages, and certainly for £10 in the larger villages. He submitted to the Committee that the expense would, therefore, be very small, for the purpose of ascertaining once a year the opinion of the people as to the way in which they wished to be governed and by whom.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he hoped the generous offer of the hon. Member who had just sat down would be largely accepted.
  MR. STOREY: I hope so, too.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that when the hon. Member spoke of having red, white, and blue voting papers, and getting the electors to mark them for different electors at one and the same time, he forgot that the elections took place under different sets of conditions.
  MR. STOREYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not been in a polling booth so often as he (Mr. Storey) had. When an elector came up to register his vote, he was asked for his name and his number. He gave them; and if he was on the Register he got a voting paper, and if not he did not get a paper.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, his point was that the qualifications for elections under the existing law were different to that which would be required under the present Bill.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that the Parochial Register would be the combination of the Parliamentary and Local Government Registers, but a man on the Parliamentary Register only would not be entitled to vote in a County Council election.
  MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, that to come to the practical question, what they wanted was that the Parish Council should be enabled to do all the work it had to do at the least cost to the ratepayers. He was afraid that under this Bill there would be great cost and uncommonly little work done. If there was great multiplication of elections, the result, he feared, would be constant change in the personnel of the Councils, a break in the continuity of policy, and great additional cost. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board had referred them to the County Councils and the Boards of Guardians, where they went on very comfortably, and where there was a continuity of policy and the cost very little. But they were not going to have the same system in parochial elections as they had in County Council elections. The parochial electors could not only choose people from among themselves; they would be at liberty to choose outsiders. Agitation was to take place in every rural parish in the country, and he was sure the inevitable result of this would
  1762
  be the enormous multiplication of elections and the enormously-increased costs of these elections to the parish. As to what would be required for the conduct of the election, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said that the cost would be merely nominal for the returning officer. He hoped it was so, but they must remember that they were going to put on the returning officer great responsibility. He believed it would not be so easy as the Government imagined to conduct these elections in the country parishes on the system proposed, particularly when the elections came to be multiplied. Such a charge would be thrown on the rates that he was afraid the be on about to be conferred on the parishes would not be very highly appreciated.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, that some years ago the experiment of holding various elections on the same day was tried. In Mr. Ritchie's Act of 1888 there was a provision for the County Council and the municipal elections to take place on the same day. However, before the day for holding the elections arrived there was such an outcry on the part of the officers managing the municipal elections that that part of the Act had to be repealed, and a different period had to be fixed for the County Council elections. He was afraid that the still more complicated plan of the present head of the Local Government Board would be found impracticable. As to the cost of individual elections, he (Mr. Hobhouse) wished he could believe with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very small. It ought to be made so, he thought, before the Bill passed, but he could not think that it would be so under the Bill as it stood, having regard to the complicated machinery of the ballot, and the fact that the polling would go on from 8 o'clock in the morning until 8 o'clock at night. He did not think they would be able to get presiding officers and clerks to sit for 12 hours in the village polling booths at a nominal remuneration. He had listened carefully to the Debate, and thought that on the whole the balance of advantages was in favour of annual elections. The Parish Councils would not be like Boards of Guardians and Rural Sanitary Authorities. They would not have large

  1763
  schemes to carry out, and it was desirable that they should be in close touch with the parishioners.
  MR. STEPHENSsaid, the object of the Committee was to avoid expense as much as possible, and he thought that could be best done not by having a long interval between the elections, but a short one. The longer the interval the more likely was it that there would be a contest whether there were real grounds for it or not. Experience of the County Councils showed that owing to the triennial system the views of the ratepayers were, to a large extent, pushed aside, and the issue very absurdly turned upon personal questions, or, more absurdly still, on political matters. County Council and municipal elections were scandalously changing their basis, and becoming purely political. That, he thought, was much to be regretted. If the interval were shorter the actual parochial business in which the interests of the electors were concerned would be the principal matter on which the election would turn. Where there were triennial elections they had bodies like Ratepayers1 Protection Societies started on all sides—most absurd bodies, seeing that their object was to protect the ratepayers against their own representatives. On the other hand, what was the three years' term for? That was to protect the representatives against theratepayers. The whole thing was a contradiction. There was no analogy to be drawn between the septennial elections for Parliament and long intervals between Parish Council elections. A Parish Council was an executive body, but in Parliament the Executive body was the Government which could be turned out at any moment, or directly it lost the confidence of those who placed it in power. That was a condition of things which he should like to see prevail in connection with Parish Councils, and which, he believed, would prevail with annual elections. The inhabitants of a parish were very much better acquainted with the domestic concerns of their parish than the House of Commons was acquainted with the concerns of the Empire; therefore, they had a much better right to turn out their executive than Parliament had to turn out right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. A. C. MORTONdid not wish to waste time by discussing annual elections, as lie believed that the people generally were in favour of them. But he did want to say one word about election expenses, because he was certain they would be excessive—as they were at the present moment all over the country. London, he believed, was the only place in which an attempt had been made to reduce them, the public officials being called on to carry out the elections without charge. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would take some means of compelling public officials to carry out these elections without any charge except for out-of-pocket expenses. They should not allow the scale under the Municipal Corrupt Practices Act to prevail.
  MR. TOMLINSON[Cries of "Divide!"] was at a loss to know what kind of returning officer the right hon. Gentleman opposite would expect to get for 5s. a day. The returning officer was the man on whom really depended the fairness of the ballot, and he must be a man in whom the public could have confidence.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, they wanted simplicity at these Parish Council elections, but the President of the Local Government Board did not always give it to them. For instance, he had imparted into parochial elections all the expensive machinery of the Ballot Act. [Cries of "Divide!"] As the hon. Member for Peterborough had said, this was a question of expense, and it surely was not worth while to increase expense for the sake of having annual elections. It was said that they could get a returning officer for a few shillings [Cries of "Divide!"]—but had the right hon. Gentleman applied to the clerks of Unions to know what fees they would charge? He (Mr. Stanley Leighton) had seen a great many letters from clerks of Unions who seemed to think that their emoluments would be injured by the Bill. But when the right hon. Gentleman said a few shillings, did he mean 3s.? [Cries of "Divide!" and interruption.] Had the right hon. Gentleman ever heard of "the living wage?" [Cries of "Question!"] Was 18s. a week—[Renewed cries of "Divide!"

  1765
  and "Question!"] The hon. Member for Sunderland had made a suggestion as to all three elections taking place on the same day—[Cries of "Divide!" and interruption]—but the elections did not take place at the same periods, and what was wanted was to assimilate them. He was satisfied that if all the elections took place on the same day and at the same hour the parish would be relieved of a great and unnecessary expense.
  MR. TALBOTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman opposite a little while ago had said—"If you are in favour of Parish Councils, adopt the provisions of the Bill; if not, say so at once." Well, the Opposition were in favour of Parish Councils; but they failed to see why triennial elections, which were confessedly the proper elections for other Local Bodies, should not be the proper elections for Parochial Councils. In the case of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, of which he happened to be a nominated member, the elections were triennial, and the result of that system was that there was hardly ever a contested election. The policy of the Board was continued from one triennial period to another—he might almost say from generation to generation. Why should not the same system of election he applied to Bodies charged with similar functions in small districts? Besides, they were establishing new representative assemblies in the country, and they should endeavour, as far as they could, to promote the smooth working of those assemblies. He considered that the longer life they were given the more likely they were to express the real desires of the people, and to carry out a wise and economic policy. The Parish Councils would have to undertake extensive works—particularly under the adoptive Acts—and he held that they would do their work better, and with more continuity if they lived three years than if they only lived for one year.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. [Cries of "No!"]
  Mr. Byles rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put, "That the words 'one year' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 141;, Noes 49.—(Division List, No. 332.)
  MR. STEPHENSsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that the term of office of a Parish Council should be one year,
  "unless successors to them be appointed within that period, and it shall be lawful for the parochial electors at a meeting to be called for the purpose at any time to supersede the Parish Council and appoint successors to them."
  He protested against giving a small number of parish representatives power to act tyrannically over the whole of the inhabitants for a, whole year. If they did anything wrong the electors ought to have the power of checking them. The main argument against his proposal was as to continuity, but he thought that, really, the Amendment would promote continuity and not prevent it, because it would put the electors and the elected on a proper footing. As a member of an important School Board, he knew the value of meetings between representatives and electors for removing misunderstandings. The protection which the shareholders of a company had a right to as against their Directors the population of a parish ought to possess against its Council. A Parish Council might attempt to serve its personal interests. The land in the parish, for instance, might belong to one man, and attempts might be made to injure the landowner for the benefit of the members of the Council, which attempts such a power as that contained in the Amendment might frustrate.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the first few words could not stand as part of the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 27, leave out from the second "on," to end of sub-section, and insert "unless successors to them be appointed within that period, and it shall be lawful for the parochial electors at a meeting to be called for the purpose at any time to supersede the Parish Council and appoint successors to them."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We had a discussion just now as to whether the elections of the Parish Councils should be annual or triennial, and the great objection that was raised to annual elections was the expense and annoyance of having frequent elections. The House, however, decided that the elections should be annual. The hon. Member now proposes that they shall be whenever the parish meeting desires, and that the Parish Council Bill be completely emasculated when it enters office. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN MR GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge) moved to insert before "The," in line 35, the words—
  "In the case of parishes with a population of less than 500, the Parish Councillors shall be elected at a parish meeting, as provided by this Act with respect to elections at parish meetings, in the case of parishes with a population of 500 or upwards."
  He said, the effect of this proposal, if adopted, would be that in parishes with a, population of less than 500 the Parish Councillors, instead of being elected by ballot after the parish meeting, would be elected at the parish meeting. A parish with 500 inhabitants could only have at the outside 100 electors, and it might have 80, 60, 40, 20, or even only one elector. It appeared to him ridiculous that under such circumstances all the expense, worry, and trouble of a poll should be incurred. He therefore proposed that these small parishes should elect the Parish Councillors in precisely the same manner as that in which a club elected its committee, or a County Council in most cases elected its committees. If it was thought right that there should be a ballot, he could not see why the ballot should not take place at the meeting. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board believed that polls would cost very little. He (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen) believed they would cost a good deal, and, as representing an agricultural constituency, he desired to see them cost as little as possible. The Amendment would obviate the holding of polls where it was clearly absurd that polls should be held. He thought that if parish electors were not able to elect their own officers at their own meetings
  1768
  they were not worth very much. It might be argued that the parish meeting might be a hole-and-corner meeting. The Amendment provided that the elections should be conducted in accordance with the Act, and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that a few simple rules on the subject should be put into the first Schedule. It would be only necessary that a fortnight's notice should be given; that the names of the candidates should be sent in writing to the clerk; that a ballot-paper should be handed to every person present at the meeting, and that the Chairman should act as returning officer. In this way a pure, a spontaneous, and a democratic election would be obtained. The only objection that could be raised was that the secrecy of the ballot might be interfered with. No doubt some Members would say that the squire and the parson would be always looking over the shoulders of the electors and trying to see how they voted. He could not understand the squire-and-parson-phobia which appeared to possess so many Members. He believed that where the squire or the parson took part in a parish meeting, and where one or I he other was elected to the Parish Council, it would be for the good of the parish. If a man could not keep his vote secret at a parish meeting he would not be able to do so at a Parish Council.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 35, before "The," insert "In the case of parishes with a population of less than 500, the Parish Councillors shall be elected at a parish meeting, as provided by this Act with respect to elections at parish meetings, in the case of parishes with a population of 500 or up wards."—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: If I rightly understand the Amendment—and the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—it practically amounts to this: that parishes with populations of less than 500 must be deprived of the ballot at the annual election of the Parish Council.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: May I be permitted to explain that I do not propose anything of the kind? A ballot may take place at the meeting. I

  1769
  only get rid of the unnecessary expense of a poll.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do not quite see how the ballot could be taken at the meeting, but, at all events, all those who were not present would be deprived of a vote.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: My point is that I do not wish to poll the constituency. [Ministerial ironical cheers.] I mean that I wish to get rid of the needless worry of a poll. If sufficient notice is given everybody can go to the meeting, just as everybody can go to the poll.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I do wish a poll to be taken, and I wish the constituency to have the full protection of the ballot quite as much in a small as in a large parish. I do not put it in any invidious way. I believe myself that wherever the squire or any other officer of the parish deserves and possesses the confidence of the electors he will be elected. We are not prepared, however, to say for a moment that these small parishes are to lose the rights and the protection which are to be given to the larger parishes. I cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had been very hard upon the Mover of the Amendment. The hon. Member did not wish to deprive the electors of the ballot, but only to poll them in the room to save expense. He (Mr. Jesse Ceilings) did not think the machinery proposed by the hon. Member was good, but, at the same time, he was of opinion that no good purpose was to be served by suggesting that an hon. Member wished to deprive small parishes of their liberties or rights simply because, rightly or wrongly, he suggested a cheaper electoral machinery.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board may he surprised to hear that I was present not long ago at a parish meeting where, having a question in dispute, we did exactly what my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment suggests. We held a ballot then and there, under so complete a system of secrecy, that I am perfectly certain that
  1770
  no one knew how the others voted except the person who took the votes. However, as I know that my hon. Friend's object would be misrepresented, and that it would be said in the country that we desired to prevent the parishioners having the secrecy of the ballot, I think he had better be w to the necessities of the case, and withdraw the Amendment.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the President of the Local Government Board whether the whole machinery of the Ballot Act would have to be employed in taking polls in the parishes, or whether any modification was to be introduced into the Bill?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We are now on Clause 3. When we get to Clause 35 I shall be happy to explain what we propose to do.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he had been glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board speak of the squire as an officer of the parish. He was glad to think the right hon. Gentleman had so far learnt something during the discussions on this Bill as to appreciate the position of the squire of the parish. So far as that particular Amendment was concerned, he thought his hon. Friend would be prepared to admit there was something to be said in favour of taking an actual poll. He certainly preferred that, and he could not appreciate the point made by a preceding speaker as to the probability of their action being misunderstood in the country. Such a consideration should have no weight with them. Under the circumstances, probably it would be better to withdraw the Amendment.
  COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he and his hon. Friends were very anxious upon the question of expenditure. If they were assured that they were wrong in supposing that the elections would have to be carried out at the expense of the parish, that fact would alter their attitude.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am afraid I cannot alter that attitude. I must decline to discuss Clause 35 on Clause 3. If I did, we should make no progress with the Bill.
  Question put, and negatived.
  COMMANDEE BETHELLsaid, he had next to propose the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Salford, and he did so in order to ascertain from the Government what were their views on the question of the ballot as introduced into the Bill. It would be obvious to hon. Members who were familiar with small parishes in the country that to put in force the whole machinery of the Ballot Act in order to poll, say, 200 inhabitants, would be absurd and unnecessary. The Vice President of the Council a little while previously gave them to understand that it would not be necessary to employ the whole machinery of the ballot, and they were now anxious to have some assurance upon that point. On his side of the House they felt that to be a matter of essential importance. They wanted the elections to be carried out with the advantages of the ballot, but at the same time they wished it to be done as economically as possible. That end could be attained by authorising an alteration of the rules regulating the ballot, and by, for instance, curtailing the hours of polling.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (5), and insert,—"The nomination and election of Parish Councillors shall be conducted according to rules framed under this Act for that purpose by the Local Government Board."—(Commander Bethell.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (5) stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Rules are already laid down for the regulation of nominations and elections under the Ballot Act, and if the hon. Member persists with the Amendment it will not affect the ballot, which is provided for in the clauses already passed and in the First Schedule of the Bill. If I had proposed that the nomination and election should be conducted according to Rules framed by the Local Government Board there would be a very strong objection to it on the ground of the grasping attitude of the Local Government Board and its desire to monopolise everything. However, if the Committee wishes that the Local Government Board should frame the Rules there is no reason why we should not accept the task.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he thought his hon. Friend had served a useful purpose in bringing this Amendment forward, and he was glad to hear that the President of the Local Government Board was open to conviction, and was willing to accept the responsibility if the House so decided. It was not in any way intended to affect the question of the ballot by the Amendment. It was purely and simply a question of the procedure at the nomination. The right hon. Gentleman would agree it was desirable there should be some definite and simple Rules to guide the presiding officers at these parochial elections, because if the duties of those officials were too vaguely laid down the practices in the different parishes would differ and confusion would be the result. He was not one of those who objected to trusting the Local Government Board where its services could be usefully and economically applied. It was desirable they should have a uniform practice and one which at the same time was perfectly simple, and he felt that the Local Government Board ought to lay down Rules to settle details which, though small in themselves, wore of considerable importance as affecting the validity of elections.
  SIR C. W. DILKEsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had very properly pointed out that they were concerned at the moment only with nomination. But election meant nomination, although the poll was a different thing altogether. He desired to enter a caveat against the doctrine of reducing the hours in which the poll should be taken. They could not dispense with any of the hours between 8 and 8. To that there would be strong objection. If the right hon. Gentleman could see his way to accept the Amendment, or one to the same effect, it would be a great saving of time. A similar course was adopted on the Education Act. After sitting up a whole night the House unanimously agreed to leave the matter to the Education Department, and from that time to this no trouble had arisen.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: We at the Local Government Board do not want this duty; but, if the House wishes, we are quite ready to undertake it. I accept the Amendment without further discussion.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reflect upon the hours the poll is to be taken in. It is simply absurd that the polling book should remain open 12 hours in order to take 50 or 100 votes. Certainly shorter hours should be named.
  MR. STOREYsaid, he entirely concurred in the last observation. The idea of keeping a returning officer and his staff on duty for 12 hours in a parish where there were only 100 voters would be absurd, and it would clearly add very much to the cost.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought it absolutely absurd that the poll should be kept open from 8 in the morning till 8 at night.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This does not arise on the Amendment.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the question was that Sub-section 5 should be left out, and in that sub-section occurred the words "a poll shall be taken," and, therefore, with all due submission, he asserted that he was in order. It was positively absurd to allow 12 hours for recording 50 votes. At Parliamentary elections returning officers now had very little to do for two or three hours, while in County Council elections they did nothing for more than half the day. Three hours would be ample for taking the poll in most parishes.
  SIR R. PAGEThoped it would be clearly understood that in accepting the Amendment the President of the Local Government Board agreed it should be in the discretion and power of the presiding officer to determine that the poll should be open for a limited number of hours. It was also to be open to him to fix the polling for such as would meet the general convenience.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It is desirable that there should be no mistake. The acceptance of the Amendment will in no way interfere with the discussion of Clause 35, which relates to polls. The Committee is dealing with the nomination and election of Parish Councils; but under Clause 35 it will have to decide at what hours the poll shall be open. That is not a matter within the discretion of the Local Government Board.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Will it deal with the fees of the returning officers?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That rests with the County Council. The House has already decided that.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do I understand that the Local Government Board will not frame any regulations with regard to the poll?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: It will be in accordance with the Act.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: And it does not come within the purview of the Committee at this moment?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: No.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Committee were referred to Clause 35, and it was rather peculiar that those in charge of the Bill were consequently referring them to subsequent clauses. But they had been given to understand that the Local Government Board according to this Amendment were to frame regulations with regard to the poll, and surely that was the time to discuss details. Did the right hon. Gentleman accept the responsibility of framing regulations for the conduct of the poll?
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, the view taken by the President of the Local Government Board was the correct one. The question of how long the poll should be open must be determined in the Act itself, and it arose on Clause 35.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think his hon. and learned Friend bad followed the argument. He wanted to know where they were. If the hours of the polling were to be settled on a subsequent clause, then, of course, the Local Government Board would not have to decide them.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSEfeared that all this difficulty had arisen through using the word "election." As used in the Amendment it was to be understood as referring to an uncontested election. Why not insert after the words "Parish Councillors," "previous to the poll."
  SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, "election" included polling. The Amendment ran—
  "The nomination election of Parish Councillors shall be conducted according to Rules framed under this Act."

  1775
  Those Rules would be dealt with in a subsequent clause, and when that had been settled the Local Government Board would proceed to frame Rules. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet asked "Where wore they"? His answer was "On Clause 3, and not on Clause 35."
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer disagreed with the President of the Local Government Board. Which was right?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that in spite of the intervention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer they were in some confusion. He admitted that ordinarily the words "nomination" and "election" should include the poll, but in the phraseology of an Act of Parliament it did not. He would move, as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert after "Parish Councillors," "and at any poll incident thereto."
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
  After the word "Councillors," to insert the words "and at any poll incident thereto."—(Mr. Courtney.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
  SIR C. DILKEthought that the confusion had arisen in consequence of the draftsman of the Amendment using words which were not in accordance with the Ballot Act. The only Acts or Orders in which the word "nomination" was used in the sense in which it was used in this Bill were the Poor Law Acts and Orders of the Local Government Board in relation to Boards of Guardians. But in the Ballot Act and in all subsequent electoral Acts the word "election" had been used for "nomination."
  SIR R. WEBSTERagreed that it would have been better if the word "election" had been used in the Bill.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that if the House should determine to alter the existing law with reference to the hours of poll it must be done when Clause 35 was reached; but at present the Government were willing to accept the Amendment without the addition suggested by the
  1776
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was glad to hear that statement from the right hon. Gentleman, for he thought it would be a great mistake to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. There were matters connected with the poll that should be decided by Act of Parliament, and not by the Local Government Board. He wished to point out that the Bill as it stood proposed that if candidates were not withdrawn before the close of the meeting there should be a poll. That might be a very serious infliction on an unwilling parish. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire had an Amendment which proposed that there should be an interval of 24 hours after the election, which appeared to him to be a wise proposal.
  MR. COURTNEYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked whether the President of the Local Government Board would put down Amendments to Clause 35 altering the hours of election?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid that, as they approached Clause 35, if he found it important on the part of the Government to introduce Amendments to the clause he would put them on the Paper.
  Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. TEMPLE SIR R. TEMPLE moved an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Preston, providing that
  "The proceedings of every meeting of a Parish Council shall begin not earlier than 6 nor later than 8 o'clock in the evening."
  As the question of the hours had been discussed on the previous Amendment, he would content himself by simply moving the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 6, at end, insert "and the proceedings of every meeting of a Parish Council shall begin not earlier than 6 nor later than 8 o'clock in the evening."—(Sir R. Temple.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. J. GRANT LAWSONsaid, the Amendment which, had been moved from the Opposition side to allow the parish meetings to fix their own hours of meeting, had been rejected on the ground that the squires and farmers would fix hours that were inconvenient to the agricultural labourers. This Amendment was put down to test the sincerity of the Government on the question of hours.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Government were perfectly sincere in putting in the hours for the parish meetings, and by an enormous majority the Committee supported us. We are equally sincere in thinking that the Parish Councils should fix their own hours of meeting.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: Then will the Amendment be accepted?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Certainly not.
  MR. STOREYsaid, it seemed to be sometimes forgotten that the Bill was meant for others besides agricultural labourers. There were mining districts also, and he thought that the Parish Councils in the mining districts should be allowed to fix the hours of meeting themselves.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, that that very argument applied to the parish meetings, and yet the hon. Member for Sunderland did not support the Amendment which proposed to leave the hours for the parish meetings to be fixed by the parish meetings themselves.
  MR. STOREYreplied that he had not been present when that Amendment was moved, or he would have supported it.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, he hoped that when the question was raised on the Report stage the hon. Member would be present to support it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. STEPHENSsaid, he was not disposed to move the Amendment which stood next on the Paper in his name, namely—
  In page 3, line 7, leave out "at the annual meeting," and insert "the chairman of the parochial electors shall be chairman thereof."
  But he wished to justify himself, because the President of the Local Government Board—in connection with another
  1778
  Amendment aiming at the same object— was inaccurate in charging him with having made an absurd proposal, and with asserting that there should be two kings of Brentford. He had not suggested anything of the kind. All he had suggested was that the chairman of the parochial electors should he the chairman of the parish meeting and of the Parish Council.
  MR. CHANNLNG MR. CHANNLNG (Northampton, E.) moved to omit the words "or otherwise" from Sub-section 7, with the object of preventing the election of the chairman of a Parish Council from outside their own body. The hon. Member said that, he attached the greatest importance to this point, and he trusted that the Amendment would be accepted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "or otherwise."
  Question proposed, "That the words 'or otherwise' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Any County Council is at liberty to elect as chairman a person who is not a member of the Council, and Municipal Corporations are allowed the same liberty in their choice of Mayors. Why should not Parish Councils do likewise? However, I do not hold strong views on the matter one way or the other, and I will be quite willing to accept the Amendment if the general feeling of the Committee is in favour of it.
  MR. TALBOTsaid, he hoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood, which only gave a permissive power to choose an outsider. There might be no one in the Parish Council qualified to act as chairman, and it was right that the members of the Council should have the right to go outside their own body for a chairman if necessary.
  MR. STEPHENSsaid, he hoped very much that the Government would accept the Amendment. It seemed to him an intolerable thing that a person should be introduced from outside to become the master of the parish, for if the chairman were a strong, masterful man, he would rule the Council. Such a course would strike at the root of parochial liberty and parochial self-control, and he.

  1779
  therefore, most cordially supported the Amendment.
  SIR F. S. POWELLhoped that the Committee would adhere to the subsection as it now stood. The arrangement had worked well in the case of Mayors, and he saw no reason why it should not do so in the case of the chairmen of Parish Councils. He did not think that there was any ground for the apprehension of his hon. Friend that a Parish Council would voluntarily, of its own action, go beyond their own body in order to select a master and even a tyrant.
  SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that several of his hon. Friends very much objected to the chairman of a Parish Council being chosen from outside the Council. If the clause were passed unamended in this respect, a door would be left open for the introduction of the "carpet-bagger," or the outside agitator, into the Parish Councils. If this Amendment were not accepted, he hoped he would be able to move the Amendment on the same subject which stood on the Paper in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston.
  MR. C. HOBHOUSEwas understood to say that he was in favour of the clause as it stood.
  MR. BENSONsaid, that the fear that persons would be introduced from the outside to fill the chairs of the Parish Councils was purely imaginary. His experience of country villages was, that they were extremely jealous of strangers and persons they did not know. It was, therefore, most unlikely that any person would be chosen from the outside except he was an exceptionally qualified person. If the villagers were to be entrusted with Parish Councils at all, they surely should be entrusted with the right of choosing the chairman they pleased.
  MR. CHANNINGsaid, that finding that the Amendment was not generally supported on the Ministerial side of the House, he asked leave to withdraw it. He had put it on the Paper, because he was aware that the feeling was strongly entertained amongst his constituents that it would be extremely undesirable to leave the Parish Councils free to go beyond their own body for a chairman.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the fact that the Amendment was not supported on the side of the House where its Mover sat was scarcely a reason for withdrawing it. He himself seemed to be somewhat in the same position as the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment, for his colleagues were not, generally, joined with him in supporting the Amendment. Anyway, if the clause were adopted without amendment a bare majority in a Parish Council might bring in as chairman an active politician from a neighbouring district, who would have no connection whatever with the parish. Therefore the clause would facilitate the introduction, by co-option, of a parochial agitator from the outside to secure a party majority in the Parish Council and gag the whole parish.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, the Committee would be placed in a ridiculous position if the words objected to were left in the clause. They had spent two hours in trying to find out who were the best electors for the Parish Councils. A great deal of objection had been raised to an Amendment which proposed that someone interested in the parish, but living in an adjoining parish, should be eligible for the Council if the electors chose to elect him, but now they were going to allow a carpet-bagger, who had not the courage to stand as a candidate, or who, if he did stand, had been defeated, to be co-opted by the majority in the Parish Council.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I would venture to submit to the Committee that we are now in possession of all that is to be said on both sides of the question, and I think, under the circumstances, we ought to come to a decision at once.
  SIR R. PAGETsaid, the Amendment was necessary to give consistency to the principles embodied in the Bill. They had got parochial electors who were to be resident in a parish for 12 months; and they had got also—what he, for one, did not want to get—residents within three miles of the parish who were eligible for election on the Council. Surely that principle ought to govern

  1781
  this case. Why should a Parish Council be allowed to go to the very end of the world in search for a chairman? It would be more in harmony with what had already been done if they were to limit the power of selecting a chairman by enacting that it could only be exercised in favour of a person who was capable of being elected to the Council in the ordinary way.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I would suggest that my hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment, and I will bring up words on the Report stage to meet the suggestion which has been made.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he strongly objected to this plan of choosing a chairman, as it would give a bare majority on a Council the opportunity of appointing a chairman who shared their views without consulting the electorate. He should insist upon a Division.
  MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the Radical Party were pledged to oppose all schemes of nomination. Somebody had said that the Municipal Councils had the right to choose their Mayors from outside in this way, but they had never done it. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew they might have done it in one or two cases, but they were so few that they were not worth talking about.
  MR. W. LONGsaid, he hoped the Committee would adopt, the suggestion of the President of the Local Government Board. He confessed that he did not share at all the views of those hon. Gentlemen who held that no man was qualified to be the chairman of the Parish Council, or any other Local Authority, unless he had stood before the electors and been elected. They all knew there were a large number of capable men who made admirable chairmen who would shrink from undergoing even a parish election. Surely, if such men could be trusted in county affairs they could be trusted in parish affairs. He accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that he would bring up the words promised.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 173; Noes 52.—(Division List, No. 334.)
  MR. STEPHENS MR. STEPHENS moved the following Amendment:—
  In page 3, line 11, to leave out "every Parish Council," and insert "the parochial electors of a parish."
  He said, he did not see why the inhabitants of a parish should be deprived of their proper position, which was that of being the holders of the property in the parish.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 11, to leave out the words "every Parish Council," and insert the words "the parochial electors of a parish."—(Mr. Stephens.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The clause as it stands enables the Parish Council in the simplest manner to exercise the powers which the House proposes to give it, and if the House should approve of that, it is necessary that the Parish Council should be a body corporate.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he thought it would be more in accordance with precedent if the Corporation to be constituted were simply the Parish Council, and he suggested that the Amendment should not be pressed to a Division.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. TEMPLE SIR R. TEMPLE moved, on behalf of Mr. HANBUET, an Amendment in page 3, line 13, after "any," to insert "reasonable."
  Amendment negatived.
  MR. C. HOBHOUSE MR. C. HOBHOUSE (Wilts, Devizes) moved the following Amendment:—
  In page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "County Council," and insert "Local Government Board."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think the County Council would be the best tribunal to settle this matter, and I

  1783
  would ask my hon. Friend not to persist in his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HENEAGE MR. HENEAGE moved—
  In page 3, line 14, after the word "direct," to insert the words "after consultation with the parish meeting of any parish affected."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 11, after the word "succession," to insert the words "and a common seal." —(Mr. Jesse Callings.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: This is one of the economies I desire. I found that the cost of a seal would be £4 10s., and therefore the Government think it would be better for the Parish Council to dispense with a common seal.
  Question put, and negatived.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 3) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Monday next read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  Ordered, That leave be given to present another Bill instead thereof.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 4) BILL.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 470.]
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  Copy presented,—of Supplementary Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure for the year 1893–4 (by Act); to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copy presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, No. 1313 (Odessa) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES.)
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 309 (Mexico) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL) (MAURITIUS).
  Copy presented,—of Annual Report for 1892, No. 92 (Mauritius) (in continuation of Colonial Report [Annual], No. 57) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOLD COAST.
  Copy presented,—of Despatch from Governor Sir W. Brandford Griffith, K.C.M.G., forwarding a Memorial from Merchants, Agents, and Traders of the Gold Coast Colony, with his Observations and the Secretary of State's Reply [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr Marjoribanks),—put, and agreed to.
  House adjourned accordingly at one minute after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

TOWN IMPROVEMENTS. (BETTERMENT.)

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES.(The Earl of MORLEY)*THE CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES.(The Earl of MORLEY) moved to resolve—
  "That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report, whether, in the case of improvements sanctioned by Parliament, and effected by the expenditure of public funds, persons, the value of whose property is clearly increased by an improvement, can be equitably required to contribute to the costs of the improvement; and, if so, in what cases, and under what conditions, Parliament should sanction the levying of such contributions in Local Acts or Provisional Orders."
  He did not propose to discuss the question of betterment, but thought it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the circumstances under which he had put the Motion on the Paper, and of the causes which had induced him to do so. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that, for the last few years the Loudon County Council had been attempting to devise some means for causing persons, other than ordinary ratepayers, to contribute to the municipal improvement of the Metropolis. The House of Commons had, during the last two years, refused to sanction the scheme brought before them, and the Loudon County Council determined to abandon the improvements proposed. This year, however, a very large scheme was brought forward. In consequence of circumstances which he need not go into, that scheme was cut down to much smaller dimensions, and as it came up to this House it only contained two comparatively small improvements for Loudon, but it contained the principle of what, for want of a better word, he would call betterment, which passed a Hybrid Committee of the House of Commons by a small majority, and was afterwards passed by a considerable majority of the whole House. On the Bill reaching the House of Lords a Resolution, proposed by Lord Onslow, was passed to the effect that before the principle, which was a novel one of a very difficult and complicated character, was sanctioned by Parliament,
  1658
  some inquiry should be instituted and some general rules laid down for its applicability either by public legislation or otherwise In consequence of that Resolution the Committee to which the London County Council's Bill was referred very properly—indeed, they had no other course open to them—struck out the clause as to betterment, and in that condition the Bill was sent back to the House of Commons, who, however, refused to assent to the Amendment. That, it would be admitted, left the matter in a very unsatisfactory position; and his object in placing the present Motion upon the Paper was to endeavour to create some way out of that very difficult position, and to provide a means for a full and impartial inquiry into the very important subject which the Loudon Comity Council had brought before Parliament. His impression was that, while almost all the speakers in the Debate upon Lord Onslow's Resolution approved generally the principle that, where property was improved in value by the expenditure of public money, those who were interested in that property might not inequitably be called upon to pay something towards the expenses of the improvement, there was a general feeling that the principle required further investigation and inquiry. There were many complicated questions connected with which he need not then trouble the House, but which, in his opinion, could only be properly dealt with by such a Committee as be proposed. If the principle were once sanctioned its application could not be confined to London; and it was perfectly certain that other great Municipalities would adopt and apply it in carrying out public improvements. Under these circumstances, it was absolutely necessary that some guidance should be given to Committees as to the embodiment of the principle of betterment in regard to Unopposed Bills. In reference to Unopposed Bills, he, as Chairman of Committees, would be placed in an extremely difficult, almost impossible, position without an expression of the pleasure of Parliament in dealing with these matters. Therefore, it was most important that soma general principle should be laid down in what cases and under what conditions the principle of betterment should be applied in public measures, depending, as it did, so much upon local circumstances.

  1659
  With this view he had given notice of this Resolution, believing, as he did, that a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament would be by far the most satisfactory tribunal to which the question could be referred, and it was one which would give an authoritative opinion, in which both Houses would undoubtedly concur. It might be thought that the present was not a convenient time to introduce this Motion; but he would point out that the time was approaching when the promoters of Private Bills would have to deposit those Bills before Parliament, and he, therefore, thought it right that the intention of the House should be very clearly indicated before that time arrived. The feeling of the House he took to be not, as had been somewhat unfairly stated, that their Lordships were opposed to betterment as a principle, but that they desired and were perfectly ready to give full and impartial consideration to the whole question, to see how and in what manner it could be fairly applied. He desired to say, in conclusion, that he had been in communication with the authorities in the other House, and he somewhat feared that Her Majesty's Government might not look with favour on the appointment of this proposed Committee in another place. If that were so he much regretted it, and he trusted that they might yet change their mind on the subject, lie had, however, thought it right to give their Lordships' House an opportunity of expressing the opinion that the question was deserving of impartial investigation. With these few remarks he begged to move the Resolution, in the hope that, if it were agreed to by their Lordships and accepted by the House of Commons, a way might be found out of the present very difficult position.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider and report whether, in the case of improvements sanctioned by Parliament, and effected by the expenditure of public funds, persons, the value of whose property is clearly increased by an improvement, can be equitably required to contribute to the cost of the improvement; and, if so, in what cases and under what conditions Parliament should sanction the levying of such contributions in Local Acts or Provisional Orders." —(The Chairman of Committees.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWwished, as he had the duty of inviting their Lord-
  1660
  ships to pass the Resolution referred to, to say a few words on this Motion. He thought the House was much indebted to the noble Earl for bringing this subject forward, and for his endeavour thus to set the House right with the public and the London County Council. On a former occasion, when this principle of betterment was before the House, the Lord Chancellor summed up the Debate in a few pithy words by saying that, whatever views individual Members of their Lordships' House might express in favour of the principle of betterment generally, those views would obtain no credence outside, and that their Lordships in voting against it would be held to be opposed to the principle altogether. Events had shown that to his other gifts the Lord Chancellor added that most rare gift of prophecy, for almost every speaker outside that House had declared that their Lordships were opposed to the principle; but they never referred to the curiously-contrived caricature embodied in the London County Council Improvements Bill—a scheme which had been described by the President of the Surveyors' Institute (members of which had to be the arbiters in these cases) as the worst plan that could be devised for putting betterment into force. The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, to whom they looked for guidance in all matters connected with Private Business, and who proposed the present Resolution, could not be accused of any reactionary views or of trying to bolster up privileges; and the fact that the Motion emanated from him was likely to cause it to meet with acceptance at the hands of their Lordships. He had heard the concluding remark of the noble Earl as to the probable attitude of the Government with astonishment — that he was afraid Her Majesty's Government might not be disposed to accept the Motion. He had heard that with surprise, because the President of the Local Government Board had drawn up a Report in which he stated that the House should first authorise the principle of betterment to be adopted before it was inserted in any Private Bill. That was exactly what the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees was now contending for. His surprise did not end there, because the President of the Local Government Board a short time ago

  1661
  addressed a Circular to Local Authorities urging them to proceed forthwith with certain improvements in order that they might avail themselves of the present large supply of unemployed labour. But the Loudon County Council had rejected the proposal of so warm an advocate of betterment as Sir John Lubbock not to delay carrying out improvements costing £1,000,000 which would give work to the unemployed simply because this House had declined to sanction a particular clause in the Bill. Mr. Benn, an influential member of the London County Council and colleague of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, said he would be prepared to accept the Motion were it not that their Lordships were so unreasonable; and another prominent member, Mr. Torr, stated that it was the feeling of the Liberal Party that they ought to have it out with the House of Lords on some good fighting question. He was rather inclined to think that there was a disposition to look upon the question of betterment as a good one on which to tight their Lordships. He trusted, however, with the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees, that wiser counsels would prevail, and that the Government would give serious consideration to the matter. Grave reflections were cast upon the composition of the Committee which considered this question in another place, and the President of the Local Government Board said he thought it extremely unwise that those who had a partipris, who were members of the London County Council, or who were strongly opposed to betterment, should be nominated to serve upon it. He hoped the Chairman of Committees would bear that in mind when he proceeded to nominate the Members to serve on the Joint Committee. There would be many matters to be taken into consideration by them. One especially, the question of the depreciation of property, which did not appear to be sufficiently clearly stated in the Motion, but would also have to be considered; also whether the amount to be paid should be fixed once and for all or should be subject to review as in the case of rates every five years. Again, it might be well that a body should be appointed different from that which had hitherto been proposed, something akin, perhaps, to that constituted in America, consist-
  1662
  ing of a jury on which property owners would be represented. He hoped the Motion would be accepted, because there was now an opportunity of finally settling this matter in the proper manner for Parliament to deal with such a question. It was to the interest of all classes, not only those proposing great public improvements, but property owners themselves, that this question should be settled with as little delay as possible, so that the principles on which Parliament might determine that property enhanced in value should contribute to the cost of public improvements could be embodied in every Bill brought forward for that purpose, either in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, as he was one of those who in the early part of the Session had voted and spoke in favour of the Resolution of the noble Earl (Lord Onslow) on this intricate and difficult subject, he had come down to the House that evening with the object of thanking his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees for the effort he had made to get a Joint Committee appointed to consider the merits of this question. That was a proposal which should commend itself to the good sense of both Houses of Parliament. He confessed he had heard with some surprise and dismay that the Government did not view the proposal with favour, and he would not believe it until he heard it from the mouth of some Member of the Government. In the meantime, he would point out that if a Committee was appointed the terms of the Reference to them ought to be very carefully considered. He objected to the wording of his noble Friend's Motion, because it did not give expression or definition to the so-called principle, betterment. Lord Onslow had referred to the speech of the Lord Chancellor at the close of the former discussion, and had dwelt upon the fact that the noble and learned Lord repudiated all the protestations made by several Members of the House that they admitted the general principle, but objected to the mode of application. The Lord Chancellor said pointedly in his speech that the House was voting virtually against the principle of betterment. He would rather have the Motion put in the simple form of "rating." Vulgar and absurd as the

  1663
  word "betterment" was, it was well-known to include a great group of questions, and he would much prefer at the head of the Motion a definition which was not erroneous. The result of this form would be to put Lord Onslow in a wrong position, and it so put the question that it would be quite impossible for their Lordships to answer it. They had it No, and he still answered it No; but as it was put now they should answer it Yes. The words were, that persons,
  "the value of whose property was clearly increased by a public improvement could be equitably required to contribute to the cost of it."
  Of course they could. Whoever denied that? If that was the principle of betterment, there was no dispute. But what ho maintained was that under the existing law all persons, the value of whose property was increased by an improvement, were taxed upon the rateable value. There was no improvement in value from any cause which did not speedily find its way into rents, and on rents all improvements were assessed. Therefore, he objected altogether to the words of the Motion, because they put their Lordships in a false position, and made them appear as if they objected to persons whose property was improved being called upon to pay anything for it. Let the question go before a Joint Committee. He thought a much better Reference to the Committee would be:— To consider whether persons whose interest in any property will clearly be increased at some future time by an improvement, can be equitably required to contribute to that improvement before that time has come, and in addition to the contribution they have already made from such property in the form of rates. That would be a much fairer statement of the question, for the words as they were now drafted were misleading. It was of some importance to observe that this was not a question of argument, but of fact—what was practically included in the term "betterment." The London County Council had circulated a very elaborate paper on the subject in the early part of the Session, before the Bill came before the House. He desired to treat the County Council with very much more respect than some of its own members treated it. Lord Farrer had said a few days ago that
  1664
  "he had a higher opinion of the Council than many of the newspapers, but even he believed that an attempt of the Council or any committee of the Council to settle wages for any part of the world was a preposterous absurdity."
  He was not going to use such language as that, but would draw their Lordships' attention to these propositions before they voted upon the question. He had amused himself that morning by going over the paper issued by the London County Council, and extracting from it the propositions involved in it and which were truly involved in what they called betterment. It had nothing whatever to do with the assessment of people whose property was affected. The propositions were these—
  "(1.) That increments or rises in the value of town property, following on 'street improvements' effected out; of rates—whether such increments are actual and immediate or only future and speculative—are to be regarded as 'special increases' due entirely to those improvements, and therefore as 'creations of the public expenditure.'"
  That was their own proposal: all increments in value which follow direct from public improvements. That was John Stuart Mill's doctrine of increment put into the most absurd form. The second proposition was—
  "That as such they belong absolutely to the public authority which is the 'creator' of them —so absolutely that the seizure of them by the public authority is not to be called or considered as a 'tax' or a 'rate' at all, but as a mere 'intercepting' of values which ought never to belong to the owner of the property at all."
  They were not thinking of taxation; they were not thinking of rating. It was not that; they were thinking of intercepting—a very nice word—the value of a man's property before it got into his pocket, because they thought it ought never to get there at all. The third proposal was—
  "That in the meantime, and for the first case, the full sweep and application of this doctrine was to be veiled and modified by placing absolutely in the hands and in the absolute discretion of a member of the Executive Government of the day the decision of these two questions:— First, how much of any increased value is to be considered as a 'creation' of the public authority: and, secondly, what fraction of that value is to be left, as a matter of favour, to the owner, until any further call may be required.'
  That was to say, all of it belonged to the authority which created it, of right; but they generously would not take more than half at present, or such part of it as

  1665
  the Executive Government of the day might decide. That also was one of the principles on which their Lordships voted. Then the fourth proposition was just as important: a difference between this and former Bills before the House was pointed out—
  "(4.) That former Bills erred and failed by adopting a 'particular geographical area,' which was the parish. This limitation revealed the inequality and injustice which would result from the application of the doctrine."
  The parochial idea was a mistake formerly; the attempt to apply the principle failed because it went upon the parochial area, which it was obvious was unjust. And what did they do now? Take their next proposition—
  "(5.)That the new Bills avoid this error by substituting for the parochial area another, and smaller area, equally a 'particular geographical area,' but with this advantage that it is not defined otherwise than by the words 'immediate neighbourhood of the improvement'; and the possibility of testing its fairness is thus avoided."
  The dodge in that—for it was a dodge—was to avoid the definition of the parish and to indicate an area only which was immediately in the neighbourhood of the improvement. The next was—
  "(6.) That town property so situated is to have its values taxed (or 'intercepted' from those to whom it now belongs) twice over and on two different principles—first, on the occupier assessed on the full letting value of the property as a whole; and, secondly, on the ground owner, not on his actual interest, but assessed on his speculative interest as it may be possibly realised at some future time, without definition or limit."
  The next was a very important point—
  "(7.) That owners, when they bargain with occupiers that the occupiers shall pay the rates, are to be considered as not contributing to those rates at all, although rents are of necessity limited and adjusted according to that bargain, and, although the total sum which the occupier now pays in both rent and rates would obviously be the value to him of the house in the form of rent alone"
  It seemed only a mathematical proposition that rates do now come out of rents. If the rates were not paid by the occupier rents would have a corresponding increase. It was a pure mistake that rates did not come out of rents. Then the last proposition was—
  "(8.) That the object to be attained is to revise all such bargains, or defeat them, upon principles of assumed equity which need not be laid down or even indicated. (9.) That the settlement of all these questions, and the application of ail these doctrines to the pro-
  1666
  perty of every owner and occupier in London, can be safely delegated, not to any legal Court acting on known judicial principles, laws, or precedents, but to a nominee of the Executive Government of the day."
  He challenged contradiction of any man in or out of that House—no one could deny that every one of those propositions was contained implicitly or explicitly in the Paper which had been distributed to their Lordships, and it was against the application of those doctrines that they had voted before they had been adequately discussed. But he was all for having them adequately discussed—all for it. There might be cases in which, after an existing rate had been raised, it would be fair to assess upon the owners an improvement rate, although their interest in the particular improve-vent effected might be contingent and at a very distant date. Take the case of Kensington. No Member of their Lordships' House who had occasion to drive to Kew or Richmond but knew that in Kensington there was a serious block in the traffic in High Street, close to Kensington Church, owing to the bottle-neck character of the thoroughfare at that point. It had been the desire of the Vestry to effect an improvement there. That, no doubt, would be a legitimate outlay of public money, and he thought the owners and occupiers might very well be called upon to pay for the improvement; but how was it possible to calculate the difference which the improvement would make in the value of property a few yards off the main street? To take the case of his own villa—in his opinion, it would not add one farthing to the letting value of the property, although the improvement would be of great value to the whole traffic of London going westward, for which at present that narrow street was the only thoroughfare. He did not think it would be fair in the case of owners at Camden Hill to estimate what the value would be on the expiration of leases 40 or 50 years hence, and then impose upon them the full rate charged to the occupier. No man would say that was fair. That was an example of a thousand cases which might be quoted, and, therefore, if there was to be a Joint Committee, he did not wish that the question should be put in a leading form, so as to involve a certain answer upon one side, either in his favour or against him, and against

  1667
  the sense in which the House had considered the subject. He hoped, therefore, the Government would agree to the appointment of the Committee, but the question ought to be approached with a perfectly open mind. They would not enter upon its consideration upon equal ground in the form in which the question was put; and absurd, foreign, and vulgar as the word "betterment" was, he really thought it would be better to adopt it than to define the question in a manner which was unjust and unfair to one of the two parties to it. He quite agreed that the differences of opinion upon the subject arose very much from a misunderstanding of what were the betterment proposals, but the proposals of the London County Council were obviously unjust, and would strike at the basis of the whole fabric of society as at present existing. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would not only consent to the appointment of a Committee, but would agree that the Reference should be in such a form as would leave a free and open mind to be maintained on the question.
  LORD HOBHOUSEsaid, ho had no desire to follow the noble Duke in his remarks on the question of betterment, though he would say a few words upon it presently. He did not wish to oppose any practicable scheme by which the Houses of Parliament should set themselves to consider the best mode of improving our local taxation, but regretted that their Lordships' House had not seen its way, as had the House of Commons, to a much more efficient method of attaining the object than could be devised by the inquiries of any Committee in the world; that was to say, the method of actual experiment and trial of a plan which had been carefully thought out. Lord Onslow had described the proposal of the London County Council as a "travesty of a plan," but their Lordships had refused to send the plan to a Committee, which was the only tribunal where such a plan could be threshed out, it being impossible to go into all its details in a Debate in the open House. As to the "travesty of a plan," the same thing had been said of other plans brought forward by the London County Council, and the same thing would he said, by those who objected to the introduction of this reform, of any plan which
  1668
  might be propounded. The County Council had in former cases yielded to the criticisms upon their plans, and had acquiesced in the rejection of them; but they thought in this case the criticisms were unfair, and they were not disposed to acquiesce in this rejection. What was a Joint Committee going to do? In the first place, it was to inquire whether the principle of betterment was or was not equitable. The noble Duke had said a good deal about the principle of betterment, and thought he could state that principle better than those who invented it and were trying to apply it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: I quoted the words of the document issued by the Loudon County Council.
  LORD HOBHOUSEknew nothing of the document, but he had not caught from the noble Duke's reading anything to the effect that a man should pay a tax in prœsenti for a value in futuro. He thought the noble Duke might fairly take the Bill itself, and his explanation of the principle when introducing it, but not an argumentation proper from another quarter. The principle presented to the House in the Bill was accurately enough stated in the Resolution of his noble Friend—whether an owner whose property has had its value materially enhanced by improvements effected at the public expense should be compelled to contribute to the cost of those improvements, and the improvement must be visible and ascertainable at the time when the contribution was required; not something to arise 50 years hence, but something existing at the moment the owner was asked to pay. The other House, and all who had spoken in their Lordships' House, certainly Lord Onslow, had acquiesced in the principle, though they objected to the mode in which it was applied. No doubt the noble Duke had argued against a principle——
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: Against the principle.
  LORD HOBHOUSE: No; against a principle which, he ventured to say, existed only in his own mind. His speech to-day showed that he had mistaken the principle. But if nobody disputed the principle, was it not a pity to refer the question to a Joint Committee? Suppose the Committee were to find in the negative, that such a principle was not equitable, could it be

  1669
  conceived that the inhabitants of large and growing towns would acquiesce in such a finding? Londoners were so convinced that the principle was right that nothing would shake their conviction but the failure of plans fairly tried in practice. They would come again and again with Bills embodying that principle, and if those Bills were to be rejected on account of a prior pronouncement of some Committee, they would go back to their constituents, and say their proposals were not receiving fair consideration; and a very irritating contest would arise. He therefore, should be glad if this first matter of Reference was omitted altogether, because he thought the finding would be superfluous if in the affirmative, and if in the negative mischievous. The next point which the Committee were to consider was in what cases, and under what conditions, the principle of betterment should be applied, and they might possibly strike out something. But he feared they were putting the cart, before the horse. Surely, each ease must depend on its own circumstances, and it would be for the Legislature in each case as it was brought up, and when the circumstances were explained, to say whether it was a fit case for the application of betterment or not. He thought it would be difficult for a Committee to decide abstract conditions—conditions which they should be able to apply to the majority of cases that came up for discussion without having before them concrete cases to instruct them. This seemed rather like an attempt to frame a Consolidation Bill, or a large part of one, without the experience which had invariably been antecedent to the framing of such Bills. For those reasons, he was afraid very little good could come of such a Committee. Probably it would not do much harm, because it seemed impossible there could be a finding in the negative, and against the principle of betterment when truly stated. Indirectly it might do some good, because it would be just one more discussion on the subject, and the advocates of the principle of betterment had found that from every discussion they had emerged considerably stronger than before. They might, therefore, welcome any contrivance by which the minds of a larger number of Members of the Legislature should
  1670
  become acquainted with what was really proposed by the London County Council in their Bill.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Duke seemed a little surprised at the information given by my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees as to the probable attitude of the Government, but I have no hesitation in saying that the Government cannot give this Resolution their support. In the first place, I do not think it is at all desirable that this House should pass a Resolution for a Joint Committee without some reasonable expectation that the other House will concur, and from some information which has reached me I do not think that the House of Commons will concur in this Resolution, and the Government, therefore, are not prepared to support it. I shall not enter into the question of so-called betterment; it is an interesting subject; but the Motion before your Lordships is, whether we should appoint a Joint Committee to inquire into the principle. This principle of betterment was embodied in a particular Bill sent up to this House. It was considered here, and, in consequence of a Resolution which was carried on the Motion of Lord Onslow, the Committee to which the Bill was referred did not proceed with that portion of the Bill. The matter went down to the House of Commons, and there, by a large majority, the plan which was embodied in that Bill was re-affirmed. The position we took up in this House on the occasion of that discussion was this: that, looking at the subject as a whole, it seemed to be much wiser to accept some particular scheme which embodied this principle than to attempt anything on a larger scale. The more I have reflected upon the matter the more convinced I am that that is the only safe mode of proceeding. Circumstances differ so much in the localities where this question may arise that you cannot lay down a cut-and-dried set of rules to apply to all cases until you have had some experience. The Bill was a distinct proposal; but your Lordships did not consider, as you ought to have considered in Committee, the exact merits of that proposal. Your Lordships preferred a Resolution of a very doubtful kind proposed by my noble

  1671
  Friend, which has been construed, not unnaturally, by a great many persons as a determination on the part of this House against the principle of betterment. Looked at strictly according to the words of the Resolution, it cannot be described as a Resolution against the principle of betterment; but it is a Resolution which declines to commit the House to any decision on the matter at all.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: In that form.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Not exactly, but I do not wish to lay any stress upon particular words. It has had the unfortunate effect, however, of producing a general impression that this House has resolved that it will have absolutely nothing to do with the question of betterment. If the House desires to inquire into the matter on its own behalf in order to arrive at a conclusion, and in order to acquiesce in some plan, I can raise no particular objection to that course, because the House is master of its own proceedings. But as regards the action of the Government upon this proposal of a Joint Committee, I cannot, on the part of the Government, concur in the Resolution, because not only have I no reason to suppose that it would be acquiesced in by the other House, but because it is contrary to the view taken by the House of Commons by a large majority that a particular scheme ought to be passed. I think the appointment of a Joint Committee on a question of this kind is not really called for.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it seems to me that the question whether the House of Commons is disposed to concur in this Resolution is hardly a matter we should formally consider. I have never before seen it laid down, that before we take a particular course it should be ascertained that the House of Commons is willing to concur in it. If we think it is a right course let us avow our belief to that effect, and throw on the other House, if they are inclined to take it, the responsibility of refusing to do that which we believe to be right. I desire also to call attention to the fact that, though it is true that in 1893 the House of Commons did come to a Resolution which might be interpreted as opposed to such a course, in one or two previous years they came to a
  1672
  different Resolution, and it is possible that in some future years they may come to a different Resolution still. I should not be sorry, therefore, to have it on record that this House wished to inquire into the matter, and some day it may be that the House of Commons will also take the view that inquiry should be made into the matter. However, that is hardly worth discussing, and if we think the thing is right, we had better propose the Resolution, and leave it to others to disagree with us or not as they think fit. But I protest against the noble Lord's test mode of introducing a great change in public assessment. He will not lay down the rules by which that assessment should be imposed; lie thinks that might be confusing and difficult. His only notion of ascertaining the proper course of procedure on this matter is the fiat experimentum in corpore vili. He proposes to take a little bit of the Metropolis, and without any rule or principle whatever laid down to guide us he wants to throw on the unfortunate inhabitants of that strip selected for experiment all the chances of litigation, in which there is no law to guide them, and from which there is no power to protect them if the decision should go wrong. We are not asked to decide how betterment shall be raised; it is too difficult for our intellects; but we are asked to throw it upon an unknown arbitrator, not yet selected, who will determine it by principles and by canons which he must invent for himself. Is that a reasonable way of taxing Her Majesty's subjects? Is it the way we have ever before pursued? If we are incapable of determining the means by which this new method of taxation is to be imposed, surely a hypothetical surveyor over whose appointment we have no control whatever is not more likely to be successful than we. I demur extremely to this plan of taxing the subject, and though I admit the principle asserted by the noble Lord and the noble Duke, that those whose property benefits by public expenditure may be fairly called upon to contribute to that expenditure, I say that the justice of the application of that principle depends entirely on the fact whether you get hold of the right man or not. It is not just to put an increase of taxation on B because A's pro-

  1673
  perty has been improved. And that is the danger which the noble Lord and his arrangements are perpetually incurring. The principle of the 14th clause of the Bill which your Lordships declined to accept was that proximity is the one test of improvement, and that if you are near a public improvement that shows that your property must have been improved by that public improvement, and you must pay accordingly. A more senseless suggestion was never put—and that is saying a great deal—into a Bill presented to Parliament. A new street is not an assistance to the old streets; it is a competitor with the old streets. In a new street the houses which are set up do not make the other houses more valuable; they make them less valuable. You might as well say that the South Eastern Railway ought to have paid for the construction of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway which runs by its side because it is in its immediate proximity, and that that was a case of betterment which the South Eastern Company ought to have recognised in the assessment. How you are to ascertain whether an estate has been improved or not, except by waiting to see, I confess I do not very clearly understand. I rather incline to the belief of the noble Duke that the increased assessment which will follow on increase in rent is the true test of betterment, and a true test of betterment and of the contribution which the owner ought to make. At all events, I demur to the idea that proximity is any test. There may be other modes of ascertaining this. Possibly, some effect might be given to Lord Monkswell's suggestion made in the last Debate that the various parts of London might be called upon to pay for their own improvements. I do not know whether that is possible or not. There is considerable reasonableness in the idea. But whatever we are doing in the matter we must recognise that this principle is absolutely new, that it is extremely difficult, and if we are not able to discover just rules for imposing this new burden, it is exceedingly unlikely that a hypothetical surveyor, over whose appointment we have no control, will be more successful than ourselves. There has been a great deal said in criticism of betterment, and its real meaning, and I think the proposal of my noble Friend, that we should have an
  1674
  inquiry by both Houses on the subject is really not open to objection, that it is thoroughly sound, and that it deserves our hearty support.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot quite agree with the description the noble Marquess has given to the situation in which we find ourselves placed. He has just intimated to your Lordships that, in his opinion—and I observed that his remark was welcomed by those behind him—no more senseless proposal was ever put before Parliament than that contained in the Bill before your Lordships.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I correct the noble and learned Lord? What I described as senseless was the principle that proximity to an improvement necessarily involved improvement.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know that that proposal can be said to be of the essence of the Bill which came before this House. That Bill, at any rate, received the assent of the Commons and of the Commons' Committee, and after the rejection of the principle by your Lordships, the other House insisted by large majorities in maintaining their position, that Clause 14 should be retained in the Bill; and now we are to ask the other House, whose proceedings it is alleged have resulted in a senseless proposal, to join with us in appointing a Committee to consider that senseless proposal. Not even the principle, which the Commons have affirmed again and again, is to be admitted; because the question is not whether the scheme shall be carried out, but whether the principle is right at all. That seems to be a strong argument against the Joint Committee. Neither do I agree with the noble Marquess that your Lordships now have an opportunity, which you had not when the Bill was before this House, of inquiring into the question. When the Bill was before your Lordships' Committee it was competent for that Committee to have made any modification of the principle they wished, and that Committee would have had the advantage, not possessed by the proposed Joint Committee, of discussing the matter in a practical light and in a particular case rather than at large, as is proposed. If it is within the ability and competence of your Lordships in Com-

  1675
  mittee to lay down for all cases and circumstances the proper conditions under which betterment proposals should be allowed, surely it was equally competent for the Committee to whom the Bill was referred to lay down the conditions under which they should have been allowed in a particular case. Therefore, to grant the proposed Committee would, to my mind, be the strongest condemnation of the course taken by your Lordships in refusing to consider the particular proposal which has been made or what modifications ought to have been made in it, because it was open to the Committee to have modified it in any manner they chose. But I cannot help thinking there would be very great danger in the action of a Committee of this description. I quite agree with what has been said, that the experiment should not be tried in the case of a particular body as a corpus vilum. I do not understand that to be a proposal at all, but that Parliament is much more likely to deal wisely with the question if it is dealt with in the first instance practically, and in relation to a particular case, instead of at once attempting to lay down conditions to be applicable to all cases. There are Statutes which are now incorporated in all Private Acts; but how did they come into existence? Not by the inquiries of a Committee, but by experience gained in particular cases. By proceeding by the light of experience an equitable result—the result which your Lordships propose—is much more likely to be arrived at than by attempting to lay down general rules upon which, in all conditions and under all circumstances, this principle of betterment should be dealt with.
  LORD HALSBUKY: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that my noble and learned Friend hardly appreciates the principle he has been supporting. Your Lordships are asked to appoint a Committee to inquire into a new principle which you are introducing for the first time into taxation without telling Overseers how they shall impose it by the rating of property. There is no difficulty in laying down rules for that purpose, though their application in particular cases may be difficult. That is all that we contend. But here you are introducing a new principle of taxation entirely, leaving it absolutely
  1676
  in the discretion of some unknown person—I do not care whether he is ascertained or not for this purpose—my objection goes to leaving it to anybody but the Legislature to say what taxation shall be imposed. The objection I have felt—and it is an objection to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer—is to your establishing a principle of this sort. The fallacy in using this term "betterment" has been abundantly shown in this discussion. If you are going to fix upon a particular person or locality, and say that person or locality shall be taxed as somebody else shall hereafter determine in proportion to the increase in value of their property from public improvements, you have established two principles: first, that he is to pay at present for something which is to exist in the future; and, secondly, that not the Legislature but somebody else shall have the power to fix the taxation. Supposing the betterment principle were adopted to-morrow, and your surveyor appointed, within what limits of proximity would he exercise his discretion? The question of proximity is merely a question of degree. Is he to determine for some 10 or 15 years hence what area of improvement will be established by the expenditure of public money? That is left entirely at large. Surely the Legislature should determine within what limits of inquiry the arbitrator is to go. It seems to me that objection has not been answered. The objection is not to trying a particular case only; you may try a particular case upon an ascertained principle with success; but here the principle itself is to be tried, and you are to leave it to an arbitrator to determine within what limits property or a street which is very near the improvement is to be assessed, and how far he may consider in the future, not in the present, that neighbourhood will be improved. That seems to me to be a matter which ought to be seriously inquired into. Then, again, there is another principle which I have not observed has been referred to—namely, compensation for depreciation of property in these cases. The Bill which came up to your Lordships certainly did not recognise that principle at all. If by the action of the Public Authorities a neighbourhood is improved in value and the owners of property in that neighbourhood

  1677
  are therefore to be taxed in excess of their ordinary rates, it seems to me to follow that where something is done which depreciates the value of property in a neighbourhood there should be a claim for compensation, and that something should be paid by the public. That also is one of the things which should be considered. Where you are considering the appreciation of property you ought to consider depreciation, and the compensation payable to those who for the sake of the public benefit have had their property depreciated in value. The proposed Joint Committee would consider within what limits the principle might be adopted in legislation, and it seems to me that the inquiry would be very useful for certain purposes, even if it were not conclusive either upon your Lordships' or upon the other House of Parliament.
  On question? their Lordships divided: —Contents 35; Not-Contents 20.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and desire their concurrence.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: There is, I think, no Business before us which will require the House to meet again until next Thursday. It is therefore proposed that the Standing Committee, to whom the Savings Banks Bill has already been referred, should meet on Tuesday, but that the House should adjourn until Thursday next.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am quite agreeable to the proposal of the noble Earl, but I wish to say that, as matters are going on, I may take some Opportunity of inviting his confidence as to the future conduct of Public Business. I have no doubt he will give it readily.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I can assure the noble Marquess that I have not the least desire to trouble the House unnecessarily.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Select Committee of Six
  1678
  Members to join with the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of the 17th November, to consider the Merchant Shipping Bill.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Ripon.) (No. 281.)

  SALE OF GOODS BILL [H.L.]
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order): Some agreed to; some agreed to, with Amendments; one disagreed to, and an Amendment made in lieu thereof; some disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to some of their Amendments: the Committee to meet forthwith.
  Report from Committee of the Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to certain of their Amendments, read, and agreed to; and a Message sent to the Commons to return the Bill with the Lords' Amendments to the Commons' Amendments, and Reasons.

  SHOP HOURS ACT (1892) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read, and discharged.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.