Sitting of 1 February 1894

REPRESENTATIVE PEER FOR IRELAND.
Writs and Returns electing the Viscount Templetown a Representative Peer for Ireland, in the room of the late Lord Clonbrook, deceased, with the Certificate of the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland annexed thereto: Delivered (on Oath), and Certificate read.
PETITIONS.
THE EARL OF WEMYSSpresented a Petition from the Burslem Property Owners' Protection Association, the substance of which was that in the Parish Councils Bill, which the House was about to consider, provision should be made for carrying out the principle that those who were to have the power of imposing taxation should themselves be taxed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ENGLAND AND WALES BILL).—(No. 294.)
  COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT.]
  House in Committee (according to Order).
PART I.

  PARISH MEETINGS AND PARISH COUNCILS.
  Constitution of Parish Meetings and Parish Councils.
  Clause 1 (Constitution of parish meetings and establishment of Parish Councils).
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved to omit the first three lines of the clause, providing that there shall be a parish meeting for every rural parish and a Parish Council for every rural parish which has a population of 200 and upwards, and to insert an Amendment following:—
  "If a rural parish has a population of 500 or upwards, the parish meeting may elect a Parish Council: Provided always, that no resolution of the parish meeting shall be deemed to be carried unless it be passed by a majority of two-
  1658
  thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish."
  He said, that in a Bill which proposed to confer fresh liberties on a large class of Her Majesty's subjects he had rarely seen so many provisions made for limiting the volition of that very large class, for prescribing the manner in which they should manage their own business, and generally treating them as if they were children in loading strings. The provisions of this Bill reminded him more of the Regulations of a French Government Bureau than those which we were accustomed to associate with the manliness of the British elector. Under the Bill the parochial elector was peremptorily ordered to whom he should trust the management of his affairs, how often he should meet, and even at what hour he should meet his fellow-electors. He had a higher opinion of the agricultural labourer than, he was afraid, noble Lords opposite, or Her Majesty's Government had; and he could only suppose that these extremely restrictive powers had been imposed on the agricultural labourers because the Government was under the belief that the squire and the parson would be continually laying pitfalls for them. He was glad that in that House the unworthy sneers and suggestions which had been indulged in elsewhere had not been heard. One would imagine that the squire and the parson held some official position which was going to be taken away by this Bill; whereas their influence was of the most legitimate kind, being duo to education and comparative wealth, which enabled them to advise and assist in distress their poorer neighbours. That legitimate influence would not be diminished by the Bill; on the contrary, he believed it would be increased, because, by the powers of "heckling" conferred on parochial electors by the Bill, the squire would be able to give a very bad quarter of an hour to anyone in the Parish Council who was guilty of any maladministration in its affairs. The first object of his Amendment was to define the parish meeting, for there was no definition of it whatever in the Bill. The second part of the Amendment dealt with

  1659
  the respective sizes and limits of the different parishes. As the Bill stood at present there must be a Parish Council created where the population was above 200; below 200 and above 100 they might have a parish meeting if application were made to the County Council for it; and where the population was under 100 they might, with the consent of the County Council, have a Parish. Council, Instead of this he proposed to divide parishes into two classes, a division which he thought had the advantage of simplicity—namely, parishes with more than 500 population, and those with less. No account was taken in the Bill of the areas which those populations might inhabit, but there was a great difference between parishes of 500 inhabitants in the southern parts of the country and those, for instance, spread over a Yorkshire wold. He had no objection to retaining the consent of the County Council; on the contrary, he proposed to require the consent of the County Council where the parish had not 500 inhabitants, because he foresaw that very heavy expense would be imposed upon the country districts under this Bill, and lie thought that by giving the County Council some discretionary power in the matter it might, in country districts, be possible to limit that expense. Nothing in his Amendment would interfere with the parish meeting. He confessed he had some predilection for the parish meeting over the Parish Council, not only because it was cheaper, but also because it was surrounded by the halo of great antiquity, having its origin in the village mote, or meeting, of all the freemen in the Anglo-Saxon township, in which no man had a greater voice than another in the affairs of the parish except in so far as it was due to his own ability and talent. The village mote had been called by an American writer "the primordial cell of Anglo-Saxon freedom." A population of 500 meant about 100 electors, many of whom would be unable to attend the parish meeting, and it was not too large a body to administer the parish affairs. The great object of this Bill, as vaunted in the face of the electors from one end of the Kingdom to the other, was to revivify village life and to stimulate interest in parish matters, but he did not think that the election of small
  1660
  Parish Councils would effect that object. He was a warm advocate of popular government, but he did not regard elections as a sine quâ non, though they were necessary evils where bodies were too large to manage their affairs directly. Ninety-nine out of 100 small parishes would elect probably the shop-keepers and publicans who gave them credit^ adding to them perhaps a farmer and the village orator; they would probably continue in office year after year, so that village life would be no more exciting than under the present system. One danger that might result from leaving the matter entirely in the hands of the parish meeting was that some meetings might be held in a hole-and-corner manner against the wishes of the electors, and resolutions adopted. He therefore proposed that no resolution should be deemed to be carried unless it was passed by two-thirds of the electors in the manner provided in the latter part of his Amendment. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would not refuse to accept the Amendment, which was framed entirely in the spirit of their own views of giving the villagers throughout the country greater interest in the management of their own affairs.
  Amendment moved,
  In Sub-section (1), page 1, line 8, to leave out from ("a") to ("Provided") in line 10, and insert ("meeting of parochial electors (hereinafter called a 'parish meeting') for the transaction of parish business in every rural parish, and if a rural parish has a population of 500 or upwards, the parish meeting may elect a Parish Council: Provided always, that no resolution of the parish meeting shall be deemed to be carried unless it be passed by a majority of two-thirds of the parochial electors present at such meeting or voting at a poll consequent thereon, being also a clear majority of all the parochial electors of the parish.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)said, he was sorry that the first Amendment proposed should be one which the Government were quite unable to accept. They thought 200 was a very reasonable limit in population, and that it contained a sufficient, number of persons for the election of a Parish Council. What, after all, was a Parish Council? It was a committee appointed by the electors of the parish,

  1661
  with statutory powers for discharging its duties. No doubt it was extremely interesting to recall the ancient village motes; but in these days it was considered better to appoint a certain number of persons who could be trusted to properly carry out the duties necessary in the parish. So far from there being no definition in the Bill, the parish meeting was, in fact, defined by the various provisions referring to it. The Government considered the limit fixed where the Parish Councils should come in reasonable, and for that reason could not accept the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, though it appeared to him that the Amendment was not perhaps of first-rate importance, yet the saving of expense was a considerable object in these small parishes. Two hundred inhabitants divided by eight, according to the ordinary rule, meant 25 electors, and he thought it rather a caricature of popular election that these 25 electors should elect from among themselves five Parish Councillors.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsuggested that the solution of this question might be found in his Amendment, which gave parishes up to 500 population the option of having a Parish Council. This Amendment would transfer these powers entirely to the County Councils in the case of about 4,000 parishes, and as a very substantial measure of disfranchisement he was unable to support it.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the Amendment contained several different proposals of varying importance, each of which ought to be considered separately. The main question raised by it could be better dealt with later on.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWwas willing to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that the discussion should take place on his noble Friend's Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEApointed I out that Clause 2 defined the constitution of the Parish Councils.
  LORD BELPERsaid, the question was, What was the alternative to the Parish Councils? For the duties to be performed, as the Bill stood at present, the parish meeting would be a very cumbrous mode of proceeding indeed. It would not have power to decide off-hand;
  1662
  but, in certain cases, one elector could demand a poll. In some cases the chairman might refuse a poll, if he considered it undesirable. It was not a desirable way of transacting important business that the decision of a meeting having full knowledge of the subject should be upset by a poll of electors none of whom had taken the trouble to attend and knew nothing about the question. He must express a distinct preference for Parish Councils over parish meetings.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAthen moved his Amendment, which raised the limit from 200 to 500, and left to parishes up to 500 the option of having a Parish Council. He pointed out that this Amendment involved no radical amendment of the clause. The number of parishes under 200 population was 4,408, and the number between 200 and 500 was 4,443. The Government proposal would really be reducing representative institutions to an absurdity. Seeing the very small number of constituents that would be given to each representative on the Parish Council in the case of a parish of 200, about seven to each. Councillor, he could not but think that it looked like reducing local government to something like a farce unless his Amendment were adopted. Besides, he was advised that the annual cost of electing the Parish Council would not be less than £14. Under that Amendment not a single parish would be prevented from having a Parish Council, if it were so minded; but it would prevent Parish Councils being forced on 4,000 small parishes, a great number of which, it was reasonable to suppose, would much rather have the cheap and simple machinery of a parish meeting.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 10, to leave out ("two") and insert ("five.")—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Marquess of RIPON)said, he did not think he need add anything to what Lord Belper had said with regard to the superiority of Parish Councils over parish meetings for the management of parish affairs. One of the main objects of the Bill was to

  1663
  establish Parish Councils as the Executive Bodies for parishes in the sense in which Town Councils acted for boroughs. The Government had wished originally to establish Councils as widely as possible, and they suggested a limit of 300. That was accompanied by what ho had referred to before—compulsory grouping, to which objection was taken on both sides of the House. It was thought, on the whole, it would be better to get rid of compulsion, and reduce the limit from 300 to 200. He did not think the figures cited by the noble Earl who had moved the Amendment were quite correct, because many urban, as well as rural, parishes were included in them, and the actual number would not be more than half that given in the noble Earl's figures. Be that as it might, it was a fundamental principle of the Bill that a Parish Council was the best means of governing a parish, and that, therefore, Parish Councils should be established as widely as possible consistently with the practical conditions to be dealt with. He therefore hoped the Amendment would not be accepted by their Lordships.
  The Earl ok HARROWBYsaid, there was great uncertainty as to bow the Bill would work, and it was therefore wise to give a large freedom of choice to the parishioners as to which system they would adopt. He could not see why these 8,000 parishes should not have the option allowed them of choosing whether they would be governed by a Parish Council or by a parish meeting. Personally, he agreed that government by a Parish Council would be the better of the two, because responsibility would lie fixed in the Parish Council, while it would be diluted in the parish meeting, as it would be a shifting and uncertain body. But he was always in favour of giving as much liberty as possible in these eases, so as to allow for all the different conditions of different localities. He was, therefore, strongly in favour of the proposal of leaving the matter optional in parishes under 500 inhabitants. He begged to support the Amendment.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, he understood that the object of the Amendment was to leave it optional with parishes under 500 to decide whether they I would have a Parish Council or a parish
  1664
  meeting, and he could not understand why this was opposed by Her Majesty's Government, except in pursuance of the passion of the Government and their Party for universal compulsion. He preferred this Amendment to that which had been withdrawn, which would make it impossible for parishes under 500 inhabitants to have Councils at all to transact their business, and he did not see why they should not be allowed to decide for themselves. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the noble Duke seemed to think there was a division of opinion on the point of principle as to compulsion or no compulsion. If the noble Duke were consistent in his objection to compulsion he ought to propose that the adoption of a Parish Council should be optional in all cases. But it was not a question of compulsion at all; it was simply a question where the line was to be drawn, whether at 200 or 500. In the other House there was considerable diversity of opinion, but the general consensus of opinion was in favour of the compromise which was ultimately adopted, and he would suggest that their Lordships should consider whether it would be wise to depart from it.
  On Question whether ("two") shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 60; Not-Contents 137.
  LORD BELPERmoved to omit the words "the parish meeting" in the first line of Sub-section 1 of the clause, in order to insert "a meeting convened for the purpose of." He stated that he had not had the opportunity of placing the Amendment on the Paper, but had given private notice of it to the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill. According to the sub-section as it stood, the County Council could not exercise their powers under the clause without the consent of the parish meeting. Under Clause 31, however, the County Council were directed to consider the question of boundaries forthwith, and the intention was that the boundaries question should be considered before the Act came into operation in November next or later. But the parishes dealt with in the present clause could not hold their meeting to decide

  1665
  whether they would have a Parish Council or not, or whether they would consent to be grouped, until after "the appointed day," and in that case much of the work of the County Council could not be undertaken at all before November or the end of the year. He therefore proposed to change the phraseology of the subsection, otherwise confusion would arise, especially in parishes belonging to a Union extending into a different county. The provisions of the Bill as it stood were entirely out of harmony, and it was desirable that the Act should be made workable before the next Election. The consent of a parish meeting specially convened should be obtained. He had two other Amendments for the same purpose—of obtaining the consent of the parish meeting, and he would like to have an authoritative statement of the view of the Government, before the boundary part of the clause was reached, whether it was their intention that the boundary question should be dealt with before the elections in November?
  Amendment moved,
  In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words ("a parish meeting"), and to insert the words ("a meeting convened for the purpose of").—(The Lord Belper.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the question raised by his noble Friend was undoubtedly worthy of attention; but as the Amendment had not been placed on the Paper, he had not had an opportunity of considering it. He therefore asked the noble Lord to let the Amendment stand over till another stage, so that it should be carefully considered by the Government.
  LORD DE RAMSEYasked the noble Lord to consider also the phraseology, to save trouble in the future in regard to the Parish and District Councils. Parish Councils were to act on coming into office, and District Councils "as from the appointed day" from the 8th November. An alteration of phraseology would simplify matters.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Parish meetings).
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, his Amendment, to leave out the words "and
  1666
  no others," in line 9, lost much of its importance in view of that proposed by Lord Balfour with reference to the Register of Parliamentary Electors. If the clause passed into law as it stood, the effect would be that a class of freeholders who were not occupiers would be disfranchised. That class, though small in number, had some interest for their Lordships, for it comprised the Peers of England, who for purposes of Parliamentary elections were classed with felons and lunatics. They should be left to exercise their rights as freeholders.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words ("and no others.")—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his impression was that Peers might vote in the same way as for the County Councils. He was not aware of anything in the Bill to prevent their doing so.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, that. Peers were not on the Parliamentary Register.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, it was intended that Peers should have the same privilege under this Bill as they had in regard to the County Councils.
  LORD BELPERsaid, that Peers were not on the Register as owners, but as occupiers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was not very clear as to the effect of the provision; but he understood the intention was to exclude the Parliamentary Register.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD HERRIESmoved—
  To leave out from "persons," after "namely," in order to insert "entitled to be registered in the Parliamentary Register of electors for the parish as voters in respect of an ownership qualification, and of the persons registered in such portion of the Local Government Register of electors as relates to the parish."
  The principle of the Amendment was that parochial electors should have a permanent interest in the well-being and good condition of the parish to which they belonged. That principle was not carried out as the Bill stood, because the Parliamentary Register of electors was included. The Amendment was framed in view of the probable extension of the Parliamentary Register before long by the introduction of a shorter residential

  1667
  qualification. In that case every man who had lived three or four months in a parish would be able to got his name on the Register. That, in his opinion, would be a very unfortunate thing. Take the case of men coming into a district for such a work as the Manchester Ship Canal. The new-comers might be able to overrule the people of the parish. They might, for example, vote for a new footpath which might not be wanted in order to get more easily to their work. For those reasons it would be better to leave out the Parliamentary Register, and be satisfied with the county electors. The ownership qualification, he was informed, could not now be held by Peers. They were not on the Register in respect of any ownership qualification, and he thought that when their Lordships were dealing with this question of voters that defect should be remedied.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 9, to leave out from the word ("persons") to the end of the sub-section and insert the words ("entitled to be registered in the Parliamentary Register of electors for the parish as voters in respect of an ownership qualification, and of the persons registered in such portion of the Local Government Register of electors as relates to the parish").—(The Lord Herries.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the Bill had been framed to give the largest possible franchise, and to exclude no one who ought to be included. It would be invidious to exclude lodgers and service voters, and retain ownership voters. He thought the clause should remain as it stood. It was desirable to give the vote to all persons residing in the parish.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEasked whether the noble Earl could give any reason why Peers should not vote in these matters?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that Peers would vote so far as they were on the Local Government Register as occupiers. The question now, as he understood it, was whether they ought not to come in under the Parliamentary Register, so as to vote as owners. He would not wish to give an opinion offhand on the subject, but would like to consider it further. He thought it would be better to withdraw the Amendment at present.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that on account of the jealousy between the two Houses of Parliament it was intelligible why Peers should not be put upon the Parliamentary Register; but why they should not be on the County Register he could not understand. The only reason that could be given for their exclusion was not applicable to this case.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, he had an Amendment upon the Paper on the subject, unless his noble Friend desired to persevere with his Amendment.
  LORD HERRIESsaid, he had not seen Lord Balfour's Amendment when he put his Amendment on the Paper, and he would withdraw it.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHmoved to leave out "either," in line 9. He said, that the object of his Amendment was to confine the franchise for the purposes of this Bill to the electorate represented by the Local Government Register. The broad ground upon which ho made this proposal was that it was, in his opinion, sound policy to limit this franchise to persons who paid the rates, and to fix it on no other basis. What their Lordships ought to aim at was to get an electorate which was financially responsible, and which knew that it was so responsible. The Local Government Register was an occupation Register qualified by residence and rating, and the question was whether it was possible to introduce direct rating into that Register. The question would be raised by a subsequent Amendment. The Parliamentary Register included the owner, the servant that came in under the service franchise, and the lodger. If the object he had in view was a good one—namely, to make the personal payment of rates a condition of the franchise for the purpose of this Bill, their Lordships must obviously strike off the lodger, because he did not know by what means they could bring home to the lodger the effect of his vote on the increase or decrease of the rates. It was not one of the conditions of the service franchise that the man who held it should be rated for the relief of the poor or that be should pay the rates. If they were going

  1669
  to strike off the man who held under the service franchise and the lodger, it would be safer to exclude the Parliamentary Register altogether, and make the Local Government Register the basis of this franchise. In urging this matter he did not consider whether this class of voters was of a Conservative tendency or otherwise. The only logical way of carrying out the principle he advocated was that the basis of the Register should be that the man who paid the piper should call the tune. Under the Bill as it stood the vast majority of the voters would not pay the rates, and the paying of the rates was the only means of bringing home to them whether in voting as they might do they were acting wisely or not. It would no doubt be said that they had given the class of persons whom he proposed to exclude the Parliamentary franchise, and that as they were competent to manage the affairs of this great Empire they would be competent to manage the affairs of their own districts. The two cases, however, were not the same. An entirely different set of considerations came into play. The service voter and the lodger were taxpayers; they were subjected to Custom and Excise taxation, and they were not so much occupied in spending money for local objects as they would be under this Bill, when the expenditure would appear to them to have an immediate effect for their own benefit. The expenditure which would have to be incurred by the representatives of Local Bodies under this Bill would be of a kind to evoke any corrupt motive which might exist. He did not say that one portion of the community was likely to be more corrupt than another. But if they put into the hands of those who did not directly pay rates the power of altering the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country they would put before them a great temptation. There were ideas abroad now about poor relief which were likely to have a pernicious effect when the bodies who had to administer it came before their constituents. To his mind, there was likely to be extravagant expenditure for various kinds of local objects, even when the rates were paid directly, and doubly would that be the case if power was put into the hands of a class who would not pay directly, and
  1670
  when the immediate effect of what they were doing was concealed until long after the mischief was done. Then it should be remembered that there was a considerable number of persons who did not pay a large amount of rates, but to whom an increase of 2d. or 3d. in the £l might make all the difference between their being able to keep their heads above water or not. There was a letter on the subject in The Times of yesterday from Miss Octavia Hill which was well deserving of their Lordships' attentive consideration. In one passage she says—
  "The tendency of this age in all matters is not of indifference or want of mercy to the poor, but of reckless extravagance. Loans are being incurred which will burden the poor before they know what is being done with heavy local debts, the interest on which, and repayment of which, will hang like a terrible burden on them, on the industries by which they are supported, and on their employers—hang on them for years after the vain and windy agitators who are exciting them to reckless expenditure are gone. The burden of rates does and must press on every class, and will be felt to do so in time, but my experience teaches me that indirect ratepayers have at present no perception that this is the case, and the large borrowing powers possessed by Local Authorities will make their awaking to a sense of this fact come too late."
  That was exactly his apprehension There was a great chance of the mischief being averted if they could bring home to those persons, at the time the money was being expended, the consequence of this policy. But if they put power into the hands of those to whom it could not be brought home, or, if brought home, to whom it would come by slow and painful degrees, they would be incurring a great danger. A new school had arisen who maintained that taxation was not a necessary evil, but that it was an actual advantage in itself, because it could be used as a means, as they called it, for the better diffusion of wealth. A very notable instance of that occurred recently, coming from an influential quarter. Not very long ago a book on the Labour Movement by L. T. Hobhouse, Fellow of Merton, with a Preface by Mr. Haldane, Q.C., a strong supporter of Her Majesty's Government, was put into his hands. The preface opened with an expression of regret that the working men of the town were turning Conservative, and that the Radical Party had not got

  1671
  all the advantage they hoped from the extension of the franchise in 1885. These words occurred—
  "And so it is that our leaders must teach this democracy that they have a message for it, a message not of mere theoretical interest, bur of practical import for the bettering of its condition."
  A little later it said—
  "But the first question how to reach the working people with a real message is the subject of this book.
  For the message we turn to the book, and find it in the following words:—
  "We could not propose, without gross hardship to individuals and danger to the public, to confiscate at a blow the land and capital of the country,"—
  the admission was made that compensation must be given; but Mr. Hobhouse went on to say—
  "Compensation must lie raised by taxation, and we can adjust taxation as we please. … If we take the view of rent, interest, and profits advanced in this chapter, we shall regard that as a natural reservoir from which wealth is to be drawn for all public purposes. In this way we should make rent and interest pay for their own extinction. There would be no spoliation, but a readjustment of taxation on a new principle."
  "Readjustment" was a very nice word; he would characterise what was meant by a different name: it was robbery. It was said that the Conservative Party were not prepared to trust the people. He was prepared to trust the people if by the people was meant those to whom the responsibility for their actions could be brought home in time to admit of their going back when convinced that they were wrong. He had noticed that the Government had greatly shifted their ground in relation to this franchise. Mr. Fowler on the Second Reading justified the proposal on the ground that there were large grants in aid given by the Imperial Parliament to Local Bodies. That, he thought, was much too remote to force upon the Parliamentary voter the consideration whether expenditure for the purposes of this Bill would have a good or a bad effect upon him. Taxing his beer, tobacco, or tea was an entirely different thing to raising money for local purposes. That argument had been dropped, and now the security against abuse was rested on the control of the Local Government Board. But the Local Government Board found it very
  1672
  difficult to keep Boards of Guardians in check at present. All persons of experience in the administration of the Poor Law must see how very easy it was in present circumstances to evade the control of the Local Government Board. If that control was not effective now to prevent lavish expenditure of rates it would be far less effective in future when there was a franchise which, as it was said, was "frankly democratic." There was a great desire on the part of the Commissioners in 1834 to keep the administration of the Poor Law separate from that of any other local object. Probably that was not possible now—it might be a counsel of perfection. But his argument was that, if men on the same Register were appealed to one month to vote for this or that Parliamentary candidate belonging to one political Party, and next month to vote on the administration of local rates, there would be a great temptation to members of one Party or the other to make promises which ought not to be made, and which ought not to be held out as a consideration for the giving of votes. He earnestly appealed to Her Majesty's Government not to allow what he could not but characterise as a most dangerous and most mischievous step. The noble Lord begged to move his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 9, to leave out the word "either."—(The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was rather puzzled at the concluding part of the noble Lord's speech, because it seemed to be directed against some new Reform Bill. The argument which the noble Lord insisted upon was that, if power were given to the voters on the Parliamentary Register to exercise the franchise in local affairs, all kinds of terrible results would follow. He was not aware that any one was disposed to go back from the settlement of some years ago and to deprive those who now elected Members of Parliament of the franchise upon the ground that it was dangerous to the country and to the maintenance of property and its rights; that they should enjoy the Parliamentary franchise. It was absolutely too late to use those arguments. It was perfectly useless now, in discussing a Bill of this kind,

  1673
  to tell their Lordships that they should Consider what would be the consequences of extending the Parliamentary franchise. The noble Lord had said that a strong supporter of the Government had written a preface to a book which devised some now ground of taxation. Now, he would venture to say that there might be wild theories started in this country, and wild proposals made at public meetings, and so forth, but the common sense of the people would not lie carried away by wild theories of that kind. The people would listen to all that was proposed, and would consider the schemes laid before them, but would be slow to adopt plans which would be to the disadvantage of those among whom they lived. To say that the people were likely to be carried away by revolutionary resolutions passed at public meetings would be contrary to the whole history of this country, and he had more faith in his countrymen. Having conferred the greater Parliamentary franchise upon the electors, he did not see how they could withhold the local franchise from them. It was often said that they should trust in the people. Without insisting too much upon that phrase, he would say that they could not work these institutions at all if they attempted to do so on the principle of distrust of the people. They might frame paper guarantees, but such guarantees would be worthless, unless they were supported by the general feeling of the community. That was the foundation on which our existing institutions rested, and as it was the foundation of this Bill the Government could not consent to the Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the noble Earl who had just sat down had confused the issue before the House when he tried to compare the local franchise with the Parliamentary franchise. The duties of Members of Parliament were multifarious, but they did not merely concern the spending of rates levied upon one particular class of property, but they concerned the spending of money levied in a vast number of ways affecting the whole community, and in which all members of the community had an equal share. It was, therefore, defensible that those who had not an immediate pecuniary interest in Parliamentary matters should, by reason of
  1674
  their general interest, take their share in the government of the country. But these parochial institutions existed for the purpose of spending rates, and nothing else. They were a rate-spending machinery, and the question was whether the rate-spenders ought to be elected by the ratepayers or not. This was a renewal of the old question whether taxation should go with representation; or whether it was to be separated from it. If they put these lodgers and compounders on the Local Government Register the effect would be that those who did not contribute in any degree to the rates would have the power of determining how the rates should be levied and how they should be expended. The Government were asking the House to make enormous changes and to effect an entire revolution in the power by which rates were to be raised and spent. Up to now there had been security to the ratepayers in the various safeguards, to such as ex officio Guardians, and plural and open voting, which were now being abandoned. He was content that that should be so, but he demurred the using that as an argument for giving rating powers to those who did not pay the rates. It was a great mistake to introduce these questions about confidence in the people in discussing such a measure as this. Surely they were men of business, and did not want to administer the affairs of this great nation upon principles other than those on which they would conduct their own private affairs. What would be thought if, being Directors of a bank, they should propose that its policy should be guided by those who had no shares in the bank and who did not care whether it sank or swam. They would be regarded as being perfectly mad, and no suggestion of showing want of confidence in their fellow-creatures would induce them to pursue a policy so unwise. Their Lordships should not be led away by the Parliamentary parallel. Parliament was elected by a numerous body of people, many of whom were wise and many of whom were foolish. Fortunately, however, the foolish did not all pull together, some voted one way and some voted the other, and thus in their numbers they cancelled and neutralised each other. It would be very different,

  1675
  however, in the case of local elections, where there was an electorate of only some 25 to 40 electors. Nothing could be more dangerous than that the raising and spending of rates should be intrusted to small knots of men making no contribution to those rates, and who were wholly unversed in the conduct of public affairs, and who would be entirely at the mercy of those who would mislead them as to the way in which they ought to exercise the power it was proposed to confer upon them. The time had not come for going into the question of expenditure, but it would be easy to show that in many parishes the number of those having an interest in the spending of the rates would, as the Bill stood, be in an enormous majority over those by I whom the rates would be paid. That was a very dangerous proposal. The Opposition had shown no grudging spirit in meeting the reforms that had been proposed by Her Majesty's Government. They had not shrunk from the enormous changes which it was proposed to make in the distribution and the proportionment of power; but what they did ask was that in making these great changes Parliament should be guided by the lights which had hitherto illumined and directed their course, and that they should not so far deviate from the wisdom of their most liberal ancestors by erecting a vast system of representation from which taxation should be wholly divorced.
  THE BISHOP OF CHESTERsupported the Amendment, but desired to dissociate himself from the principles of taxation which had been enunciated by the noble Lord who had moved it. Their Lordships would discountenance the wild views to which the noble Earl the Leader of the House had referred, and which he agreed would find their level in due time, but he thought the Government were putting forward a theory with regard to the payment of rates and taxes which was not quite worthy of the rights of citizenship or the rights of property. It had been said that the payment of rates and taxes was an evil, but it was a public duty, and he thought that weapons of a somewhat inferior temper should not be used in order to oppose the views of certain wild theorists.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREhoped that the House would not agree to the
  1676
  Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. They must remember that the subject had already been considered by the House of Commons, to whom this alteration, if made, would have to go back. Precisely the same Amendment as that now before them was moved in the House of Commons, and was not supported by any considerable portion even of the Conservative Members in that House. As far as he could understand, the only class of voters who would be excluded from the local government franchise by the Amendment would be the owners. As for the lodgers in the rural parishes, they were not a very numerous class, and he was informed that they were upon the Local Government Register already. The Amendment, as it affected the service franchise, would have the effect of excluding the whole agricultural population from the local franchise. He thought the Amendment was hardly one which upon consideration the Party opposite could accept.
  On question whether ("either") shall stand part of the clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 89; Not-Contents 112.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the Committee was in the singular position of having taken a Division upon the omission of a word which, being omitted, made no difference whatever in the sense of the clause. That was fortunate, because the difference of opinion in the House was sufficiently considerable to make it worth while to reconsider the question which lay behind, and which was raised by the Motion. The persons who would be left out by the adoption of the Amendment now proposed were owners and service voters.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the proposal had reference to "nonresident owners."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the reference was to owners who were not occupiers. Those persons and the service voters formed two classes, whom their Lordships would not regard as likely to specially favour Communistic ideas. Then there was the lodger class, which in most rural parishes was a small one. It was improbable that they would show an instinct for doing mischief or for spending other people's

  1677
  money in the way suggested. He thought that lodgers who were comparatively permanent in rural parishes would be, for the most part, respectable unmarried artizans, who had no interests: apart from those of the ratepayers of the parish. It did not seem necessary to exclude those classes for any practical reason. He would not dwell upon the political reasons involved. He thought the course proposed was not prudent or necessary for the Bill, and the effect of it might be largely and speciously misrepresented unless some adequate practical result could be given. The points alluded to did undoubtedly deserve serious consideration, as to how far the system of compound householders was to be retained, or put an end to, or qualified—whether the condition of direct rate-paying in any shape might be introduced no as to be a security against the undoubted evil of persons being empowered to tax others without themselves paying. Might not those points be raised otherwise than in the form of this Amendment, and in a more convenient manner for decision? Although the constituency electing the Parish Councils might not be required to be direct ratepayers, their Lordships might provide that the members of those Councils should be of that character. They, after all, were the persons who would have to make the expenditure and impose the rates, not those who returned them. Those were the reasons why he thought the proposed Amendment should not be pressed—at all events, at present.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH, in answer to the appeal of the noble and learned Earl, placed himself in the hands of the House. He moved to omit from Clause 2, Sub-section 1, the words "or of the Parliamentary Register of electors," the object of the Amendment being to make the parish meeting for a rural parish consist only of persons upon such portion of the Local Government Registe of electors as relates to the parish. Considerations of principle rather than of expediency induced him to move this Amendment. If direct rate-paying were provided for in the case of the person who now compounded for his rates, to be logical they ought to exclude from the Parliamentary franchise
  1678
  those who did not pay rates directly, such as lodgers and occupiers under the service franchise. The noble Duke said the owners would be excluded; but his point was that you must take the Parliamentary franchise as a whole; you could not pick and choose what you liked out of it. It might, however, be more convenient to postpone this question until they had disposed of the question affecting the position of the compound householder.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was about to make that suggestion, as this was an inconvenient stage for raising the question. He did so not because it was a Party question in one sense or the other; and, further, he did not think that in another place the omission of the Parliamentary Register would be acceptable, even to the friends of noble Lords on that side of the House. He hoped the noble Lord moving the Amendment would take the sense of the Committee, for many outside of it were, he knew, against the proposal—at all events, at the present stage of the Bill.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, their Lordships should make their position clear to the country with regard to the compound householder. He distrusted a proposal which had not the picturesque and quite British feature of a little inconsistency, and hoped the noble Lord would consent to postpone the Amendment for the present.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, it was an old Liberal principle that taxation and representation should go together, and reminded the Committee that in support of it he had presented numerous influential Petitions from Property Defence Associations throughout the country. He should certainly vote in support of it, irrespective of any questions of owners franchise or service franchise whatever.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHconsented to withdraw the second part of the Amendment, to be brought up again on Report if necessary.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved, after the word "parish" to insert—

  1679
  "and the agents duly authorised for that purpose of every Corporation or Company charged to the rate for the relief of the poor of such parish,"
  the object being to give the authorised agents mentioned the power of attending the parish meeting. He pointed out that Railway Companies were rated for the relief of the poor of the parishes through which their lines passed, and having now power to attend Vestry meetings there was no reason why that power of attendance should be taken away in regard to I parish meetings and the election of Parish Councils.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 11, after the word ("parish"), to insert the words ("and the agents duly authorised for that purpose of every Corporation or Company charged to the rate for the relief of the poor of such parish").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, there were great practical objections to the Amendment. The Bill recognised two Registers—the Parliamentary and the Local Government; but if the Amendment were accepted, a supplementary Register would be required. He thought that if the Amendment were adopted it would afford an opportunity for the exercise of illegitimate influence in elections, in the way of personation and other objectionable practices, if the agents of distant Railway Companies entirely unknown in the parish were to be entitled to vote in these matters, and he therefore hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  LORD DE RAMSEYdid not wish to prolong the Debate, but it seemed to him that the Committee was disfranchising a large and important industry in this country, representing a capital of about £1,000,000,000. A Return on the subject showed that one of the great companies running to the North paid 60 per cent, of the rates in parishes between London and Peterborough through which it passed, the proportion in one of them reaching even 75 per cent. They were abolishing plural voting, and they were putting £1,000,000,000 of capital at the mercy of the Parish Councils.
  LORD MONK BRETTONsaid, this was a new departure. Companies and other bodies never had been represented, either for local or Parliamentary
  1680
  purposes, in this way. It was urged on the other side that no one ought to have a vote unless he was personally rated, and yet it was proposed by this Amendment to give votes to persons who would not in any case be personally rated.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYmoved to omit the words
  "or, in the case of an election, for each of any number of persons not exceeding the number to be elected,"
  for the purpose of inserting—
  "In the case of an election every elector shall have as many votes as there are persons to be elected, and may distribute them amongst the candidates as he thinks fit."
  He said, he was quite in sympathy with the general aims of the Bill, and was not moving the Amendment in the interests of the Church, or of Party, but in the interests of plain reason and common sense. The plan of voting embodied in the clause was a dangerous one. It was possible, in a case in which there were, say, 100 electors, for 51 to agree to vote for one ticket, in which case they would carry it, and 49 electors would be left absolutely unrepresented. It was not a case of the representation of smaller minorities: but it was a case of preventing the disfranchisement of 49 per cent, of the electors. The plan of the clause was taken from the armoury of the ultra-Democratic Party in France. Their: object was to have all the Deputies of a department elected at one stroke from one list; that was the policy of scrutin de liste as opposed to scrutin d'arron-dissement. It was as if we were to elect all our Parliamentary Representatives by one constituency. He did not say the plan was introduced with any intention of revolutionising our procedure; but, still, it was a dangerous instrument to put into the hands of agitators. His Amendment was technically known by the name of the cumulative vote, and it was adopted in School Board elections. He knew it was urged that in Loudon it had secured the return of a number of representatives of small sections, sometimes called faddists; but he did not think that had been the case in the Provinces. The effect had rather been that Parties had put forward as

  1681
  many candidates as they could carry, and in many places this had rendered contested elections unnecessary. As the clause stood, the departure of two or three families from a parish would, in some cases, alter the colour of the Parish Council. If the Amendment were adopted it might he possible hereafter to reduce the number of Rating Authorities, and assimilate the School Board election to the Parish Council election. There was reason to expect a large extension of the School Board system in the country, and to have two Rating Authorities elected by the same persons would be an intolerable nuisance.
  Amendment moved,
  In Sub-section (2), page 2, lines If and 15, after ("question") change the comma into a full-stop, and leave out ("or, in the case of an election, for each of any number of persons not exceeding the number to be elected") and insert ("In the case of an election every elector shall have as many votes as there are persons to be elected, and may distribute them amongst the candidates as he thinks tit").—(The Bishop of Salisbury.)
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHasked their Lordships to consider whether the plan in the Amendment would not be more objectionable than the plan in the clause. The cumulative vote would make it certain that in every village the most objectionable, most dangerous, and most obnoxious man would be elected.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the noble Marquess had stated forcibly the practical objections to the Amendment. Many schemes had been contrived for the protection of minorities, but when put in operation it was found they wore open to serious objections. That was our experience when we tried an experiment in Parliamentary elections. The system was out of harmony with all our elections, except that for the School Boards, and he strongly deprecated its introduction into Parish Council elections. There was a special reason for introducing the cumulative vote in the case of School Board elections which did not exist in regard to elections under this Bill. It was obviously desirable that on a body having the charge of education all denominations should be represented, but there were some communities in which strong religious differences existed, and, without the cumula-
  1682
  tive vote, minorities, whether of Churchmen, Nonconformists, or Roman Catholics, would find no representation on the School Board. The simple mode of election provided in the Bill was understood by all who had to exorcise the franchise, was much more convenient than the proposal contained in the Amendment, and was much more likely to work harmoniously.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved an Amendment providing that the parish meeting should assemble at least twice in every year. The clause under discussion provided for one parish meeting; but Clause 19 said there should lie not less than four every year. He thought two meetings would be sufficient for many parishes.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 10, to leave out the word ("once") and insert the word ("twice)."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYexplained that there was no inconsistency. Clause 19 referred to parishes in which there was no Council; but the provision now before the Committee was general, and applied to the case of parishes having a Parish Council. If the noble Earl wished it, he had no objection to the parish meeting assembling twice a year in these parishes.
  A noble Lord: No, no.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was only speaking personally.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there would surely be an objection to meetings being hold four times in the year. That would mean that one meeting must be held in dead winter.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that matter could be discussed upon Clause 19. At present the Committee was dealing with an Amendment on an earlier clause.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONthought it sufficient that the parish meeting should assemble twice a year, with power to meet oftener.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that was the provision of the Bill as it stood, They might meet as often beyond once as they pleased at their own free will.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE Earl OF ONSLOWmoved a further Amendment, to the effect that the words providing that the proceedings of the parish meeting should begin not earlier than 6 o'clock in the evening should apply only to the first meeting. He could not, he said, see why, having once met, the parish meeting should not determine for itself at what hour its subsequent meetings were to be held. It was possible that in the case of miners, sailors, or fishermen, who sometimes were engaged in their occupation during the night, the time of meeting fixed in the Bill would be very inconvenient.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 17, to leave out the word ("every") and insert the words ("the first"), and after the word ("meeting") to insert the words ("held under this Act"); and in line 18, after the word ("evening") to insert the words ("and of all subsequent meetings at such time as the parish meeting may from time to time determine)."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he attached great importance to the restriction as the section stood. Unless there was such a provision, it would in many parishes be sought to hold the meeting at an earlier hour, with the deliberate intention of preventing a number of persons who could not attend until evening from taking part in the proceedings. If they were to give satisfaction to the agricultural labourer and the labouring classes generally, it was absolutely necessary that some restriction of this kind should be imposed; and scarcely any clause of the Bill had met with greater approval in the country than that embodying the provision now under discussion.
  THE DIKE OF RUTLANDasked the noble Earl to define those malicious people who intended to prevent the poorer classes from attending the parish meetings.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would leave it to the noble Duke to say whether he did not know that there were people in rural districts who thought it would be extremely desirable to oust those classes.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWpointed out that they must be in a majority.
  LORD BELPERsaid, the noble Earl had, in fact, answered himself. He had admitted the necessity with regard to the first meeting, and the same argument, of course, held good with regard to the others.
  A noble Lord said, they had been told there was a general feeling among the agricultural population in this country that if they were not safeguarded with reference to the time of meeting dissatisfaction, which it would be difficult to eradicate, would be aroused in their minds, a feeling that advantage might be taken as had been done in the case of Vestries. He was sure there was no wish on either side of the House that the meetings should be held at times when the agricultural labourers would not, be able to attend.
  A noble Lord said, there were great agricultural districts, such as those in Northumberland and on the borders of Scotland, where, if the meetings were held at 6 o'clock on week nights, none of the outlying shepherds and labourers and persons of that description could attend. Practically, those attending would be only those within call of the village. Men who had three or four miles to go would not be able to get there at all. Rural labourers should not be treated like children, but should be left to fix the hours for themselves.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL PERCYbegged to withdraw his similar Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYmoved an Amendment that the provisos of the Elections Act, 1872, should not apply in regard to illiterate voters in these cases. The votes were to be taken by ballot under Rules framed by the Local Government Board, and the portion of the Act of 1872 as regarded illiterates might be advantageously omitted. His proposal was not a disfranchising measure. It merely took away the privilege now allowed to a man of having his ballot paper marked for him. He contended that as the Education Act

  1685
  had now been in operation for many years, there was no good ground for the continuance of the special privilege whereby illiterate voters could claim to have their voting papers marked for them.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 23, after the word ("ballot") to insert the words ("provided that the words 'or any voter who makes such a declaration as hereinafter mentioned that he is unable to read' of Clause 26 of the First Schedule, Part I., of the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections Act, 1872, shall not apply to the taking of votes under this Act.")—(The Viscount Galway.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, illiterate voters ought not to be treated exceptionally in parish elections as compared with other elections. If this Amendment passed they would be prevented in parish elections from taking a course which it would still be competent for them to take in Parliamentary and other important elections. There was no special reason why illiterate voters should be excluded from the exercise of the particular franchise with which this Bill was concerned.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYexplained that the proposal was not to exclude the illiterate voter, but to get rid of the special machinery which had been invented for his protection. He was of opinion that it would be quite possible to prepare voting papers in such a way as to make them quite intelligible to illiterate men. The intervention of another party in the transaction was an expedient of doubtful desirability. However, the matter was not one of supreme importance—in this country, at all events. Illiterates had existed before our present voting regulation came into force, and he would be sorry to see those persons excluded. At the same time, their Lordships knew that the principle was utterly false, and they had seen the results in the Sister Country. He would be glad to see this special and unnecessary clause got rid of altogether. At the same time, lie hoped the Amendment would not be pressed, because he did not think it of sufficient importance to be sent down to the House of Commons, unless with a considerable preponderance in its favour. He did not like to allow the noble Earl's
  1686
  (Lord Kimberley's) remark to pass without calling attention to the fact that it was the machinery dealing with the illiterate voter and not the illiterate voter himself which was referred to here.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Constitution of Parish Councils).
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved to omit the words "the whole of" in the first sub-section, his view being that if these words were retained no one could be elected to a Parish Council who could not point to an unbroken residence of 12 mouths in the parish. The result, he feared, would be that country gentlemen who occasionally left their homes would be disqualified. Her Majesty's Government proposed to disestablish the ex officio members of Boards of Guardians, but surely they did not wish to put a disability upon their Lordships or upon Members of the other House of Parliament. Under the clause as it stood it would not be competent to them to leave their country homes or go abroad for a time without becoming disqualified. That was, of course, not the intention of the Government; but, in order to make it quite clear, he moved the omission of those words.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 31, to leave out the words ("the whole of")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
  EARL STANHOPEhad a similar Amendment. As the clause stood, it provided that the "Rural Council should be chosen from among the parochial electors" resident in the parish during the preceding 12 months or within three miles thereof. In view of those words "from among," he was not sure that this Amendment was necessary. No doubt his noble Friend Lord Feversham was anxious to make it clear that Members of their Lordships' House who happened to go abroad, or to leave their homes, should not be rejected.
  THE EARL OF CRANBROOKsaid, the clause had not the meaning the noble Lord supposed. It only meant that persons should have a residence in the parish. A man was held by law to have resided in a district 12 months when he

  1687
  had a residence there and the intention of returning to it after absence.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that a continuous residence of 12 months was apparently not intended. He had always understood "residence" meant having a residence to which the person had a right to return after absence, and, of course, this provision would be governed by the universal practice.
  LORD HALSBURYasked whether the noble Earl would state that that was the meaning of the words here?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would prefer to consult the draftsman upon the matter, but he must say it struck him much in the same light as it had appeared to his noble Friend opposite.
  The Earl of SELBORNEdoubted the expediency of retaining the words "the whole of." He thought the clause as it stood would raise a question, and would make a definition necessary. Why put in "the whole," unless it were desired to secure the whole period of 12 months' uninterrupted residence? He recollected having had formerly to consider questions of this kind with regard to residence in the Universities and Cathedral towns, and though it was not considered that pernoctation was in every case necessary, yet being upon the spot was. These words, therefore, seemed to raise an unnecessary question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that the University qualification, he thought, was eating dinners. Probably that would be the case here. He quite agreed that the words ought to be struck out now—at all events, leaving it to the draftsman to restore them at a later stage.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, this point had been much discussed in the other House. He disclaimed any authority whatever in the matter. All he desired was—and that seemed to be the general wish of the Committee—that they should not introduce anything new with regard to residence for this purpose, but that the general law should apply. He, however, would see that the point should be carefully considered before the Report stage. As he had said, the object of the Government was that the ordinary law applicable to the question of residence should apply in this particular case also.
  THE EARL OF WINCHLLSEAasked whether the 12 mouths' previous residence did not mean 12 months preceding registration?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, as the matter was to be considered, it would be well if attention were given to another point. It was all very well to say that a man should reside for a year in a rural parish—there the fact could be easily ascertained; but this proviso would apply in cases of occupancy in large boroughs, and how was the Local Authority to obtain the necessary evidence of residence during the whole time, especially where places having large populations were concerned? The Marquess of Salisbury asked whether the proceedings of the Parish Council would be invalidated if the elected persons were disqualified. If that were the case it might become of serious importance to know whether a man had been in the parish 12 months or not.
  LORD BELPERasked who was to decide whether a person had resided in j the parish during the whole time mentioned?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the same procedure, no doubt, would be adopted as in the case of any other dispute.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEasked whether it would be by quo warranto?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it might be so, but he was not sure whether the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act would not extend to the case.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsuggested the proceedings might be by Election Petition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, in that case the Petition would be dealt with as in other cases.
  EARL CADOGANinquired whether the Committee was to understand that this procedure applied only to elections in rural parishes, and not to other elections?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the words were not in the Bill originally, but were inserted during its progress in the other House, as it was found that they occurred in other Acts of Parliament. He would, however, look into the matter carefully before the Report.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMwas willing to withdraw the Amendment on

  1689
  the understanding that it should be perfectly clear country gentlemen and others might leave their residences without disqualification.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, in reply to the question as to the proceedings of the Council being invalidated, that it was provided in the Schedule, at page 63, Section 12, that—
  "The proceedings of a Parish Council shall not be invalidated by any vacancy among their members, or by any defect in the election or qualification of any members thereof."
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND and GORDONmoved an Amendment providing that residence within three miles of a parish should not be a qualification for election to the Council of that parish. He said, that if the clause were not amended in this direction, persons would be eligible for election to the Councils of parishes with which they had really no concern. They might live two parishes off, and yet be eligible. The object of these Parish Councils was that parish affairs should be dealt with by persons having an interest in the parish; and to allow people to act upon them without having half an acre of land in the parish, and living perhaps several parishes away, seemed very objection-able.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 32, to leave out the words ("or within three miles thereof").—(The Duke of Richmond and Gordon.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I think there are a great many cases where a man whom everybody would desire to place upon the Parish Council lives just outside the boundary. Such a man could only be put on by the wish of the persons of the parish in which he does not reside. What harm the clause can do I do not understand, because in most parishes the electors generally are animated with a very parochial spirit, and would not desire to go outside their own parish. But it may be found, especially in small parishes, that there will be a great deal of difficulty in finding competent persons who are willing to serve, and I can easily imagine that there would be persons outside willing to serve the parish, and whom the electors would be very glad to place on their
  1690
  Councils, and such people it would be very inconvenient to exclude. The matter is not one of principle, but of convenience. In School Boards there is actually no restriction whatever, and I have known cases where this arrangement has been extremely convenient.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYpointed out that there was a very serious danger of the management of the parish falling into the hands of strangers. The whole virtue of those Councils should be that they should really represent the village feeling. There was no need to go outside the parish limit; if they did so, there would be always men outside the parish—often in the neighbouring county town—who would like to make a position for themselves by coming in and managing these Councils.
  THE EARL OF SELBOHNE: There is a principle involved here; not merely a question of convenience. The principle is of much more importance than in any conceivable case the convenience could be. This Parish Council is a body which is to tax the ratepayers in the particular parish, and to exercise a great control over their affairs, and the persons elected should be persons identified in interest with that parish. If the person is neither a parochial elector nor a resident in the parish, however high the estimation in which he may be held by his neighbours, it seems to me he is not a fit person to be elected to the Parish Council—the taxing body of that parish.
  LORD TURINGthought it most desirable the Parish Council should have power to elect men resident within the three-mile limit. These powers of electing outsiders were never abused. He believed the fewer qualifications or restrictions imposed with regard to those offices the better. They were often found to be detrimental to local and public interests, and often prevented the best men being chosen.
  EARL NELSONsaid, that many parishes were miles long, and if a representative were chosen who resided three miles from the parish boundary it would be quite possible that a person might be elected who resided six miles from the place of the village meeting, the centre of parish life.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONremarked that in his part of the country the civil

  1691
  parishes were extremely small, and in the ecclesiastical district in which he lived there were a considerable number of these civil parishes. Supposing one of these civil parishes desired to choose the clergyman of the ecclesiastical district not living in that parish, the effect of the Amendment in civil parishes would be to preclude the Incumbent from sitting on the Parish Council.
  THE EARL OF WINCIIILSEA, in supporting the Amendment, said, the noble Marquess had thrown a very clever fly over those on the Opposition Benches, and perhaps over the right rev. Bench, too. But he wished to point out that the fact of their Lordships having fixed a limit of population at 500, instead of 200, to warrant the establishment of a Parish Council, would, to a great extent, meet the difficulty which seemed to be apprehended of not obtaining a sufficient number of suitable men for the Council within the parish. There would be a larger field to draw upon. Moreover, in the case of the District Council residence within the district was required, and in the case of the County Council no one living outside the county was eligible for election unless he owned property in the county. A similar principle should be applied in the case of Parish Councils, and it would be well to leave the parishes strictly to manage their own affairs.
  LORD BELPERconsidered the Amendment was drawn upon no principle whatever. He could understand it being said that nobody who lived outside the parish could be elected; but why say that persons within a three-mile limit from the parish—however far the parish might tend in one direction, and however near in the other—could be eligible? In his own district it would enable people living in three different rural districts and in three counties to vote for a very small parish in one of the counties. It seemed to him ridiculous that people who had nothing to do with the county should be entitled to sit on the Parish Councils.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHfelt that the three-mile limit was just as much a limitation as was the parish boundary, and if the principle of the Bill were carried out there would be no logical reason against permitting the election of persons from anywhere in England and Wales. He hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment.
  LORD DERAMSEYsaid, he was quite certain that the parishes were anxious to have their Councils to themselves and that no outsiders should be brought in. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND CORDONremarked that only five Councillors would be required in many parishes, and it would be strange if that number of eligible persons could not be found within the parish boundary.
  LORD DE RAMSEYproposed to insert as a new sub-section—
  "The District Councillor or Councillors elected for the parish, or any ward thereof, or any area including the parish, shall be, by virtue of his or their office, an additional member or members of the Parish Council."
  His Amendment was virtually to connect the three Local Governing Bodies together. He had similar Amendments later on to connect the District Councils with the County Councils. It was hard to say whether any man could be elected for two bodies; but as it was possible that the whole of the Boards of Guardians might come out in the same year, his object was that there should be some continuity of policy, and that there should be good relations established between the Parish and the District Bodies. Otherwise, these links between the bodies might be absent. His object in moving the Amendment was very plain, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 35, at end insert as a new sub-section: ("The District Councillor, or Councillors, elected for the parish, or any ward thereof, or any area including the parish, shall lie, by virtue of his or their office, an additional member or members of the Parish Council".)—(The Lord De Ramsey.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I do not see any advantage whatever in a District Councillor being placed on the Parish Council. The District Councillor is elected for another purpose, and it would be very distasteful in many eases if he were obliged to be a Parish Councillor. If the parish is willing to place him on its Council, and he is willing to serve, there is nothing to prevent his being elected; but I do not think any advantage would be gained by forcing this on District Councillors in all cases. Making District Councillors ex officio Parish Councillors is a principle I do not

  1693
  admire. A gentleman in the district would be sure to get elected to a Parish Council, if he so desired. It would be far better to leave the Bill as it is.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought that this was the most important Amendment that had been presented to their Lordships. It was a matter for regret that the ex officio element had been excluded from Boards of Guardians, though he would not say anything on that point now. The principal advantage of the ex officio element on a body was that it secured continuity of business, and the great advantage of this Amendment was that it would make the Parish Council work in harmony with the District Council. The Amendment, he believed, was recommended as most desirable by the County Councils Association. There were no Party politics whatever in it, and he earnestly hoped their Lordships would seriously consider it. The only effect of the Amendment would be that it would secure to the Parish Council the man whom the whole district had voted the best man to be on the District Council.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the bearing upon this Amendment and the decision at which the Committee arrived a moment or two ago. It was resolved that it should not be lawful for the electors to elect as one of the Parish Council a person who did not reside in the parish or within three miles of it. By the present Amendment, although a person may reside more than three miles from the parish, and although the parish may not want him, he is to be forced upon the parish. The principle is not a sound one. Inasmuch as the Parish Councillors are to deal with the parish and spend the money of the parish, is it reasonable to force upon the parish a Councillor who may have been elected for an area including the parish, but those in the parish may have voted against him, their votes being counteracted by the votes of other parishes within the area? Surely this is quite inconsistent with the previous decision of the Committee.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNhoped their Lordships would insert the Amendment in the Bill. Under this Bill there were a variety of appeals and a
  1694
  variety of connections between the Parish, District, and County Councils. For those purposes it was most important that they should have certain members who should belong to each of the bodies, and be cognisant of the business which was taking place in the other, so as to be able to make representations with regard to that business.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYexpressed agreement with the Lord Chancellor. There might be a number of small parishes grouped together. They would have to select a District Councillor, and if the Amendment were carried it would seem that he would have to serve on each of the Parish Councils, and he would be a member of the Parish Council although not residing within the parish. That being so, he could not support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKstated that he was entirely in favour of putting all these members on the Parish Council. He did not think Lord Kimberley was right in trying to tar those men with the brush of ex officio members. They called an ex officio member of the Board of Guardians a Magistrate not elected by the ratepayers of the district, but appointed by the Lord Chancellor. These District Councillors might be ex officio members, but they would be elected by the people where they lived. In his opinion, this Amendment was a most suitable one.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 60; Not-Contents 55.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved to leave out from page 2, line 36 (Subsection 2), of the Bill the words "or marriage," so as to disqualify married women from being Parish Councillors. This Bill proposed, he believed for the first time, to extend the right of a very large franchise to married women. By this Amendment he desired to test the opinion of the Committee, and the decision would affect a series of cases in the Bill. It was proposed that women should sit in Parish Councils, and afterwards on District Councils, and to be on the list of electors for Parish Councils. This was a very considerable change, and might have a very far-reaching effect. It was not the original proposal of the Government. It was a proposal made in

  1695
  the other House, and carried by a very small majority. Allowing a married woman to take part in all these local contests and local affairs might have a bad effect on the relations of husband and wife. He could not think it was for the social comfort of the great mass of the population. But the proposal would go further, for it was said, he believed, in the House of Commons, both by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain, "You can hardly stop here with giving these votes and these local government franchises to married women; you must go much further." At first the President of the Local Government Board opposed this proposal and took a Division against it, but afterwards he gave way, because, as he said, he understood the feeling of the House of Commons was in its favour. The proposal required grave consideration by their Lordships' House. He hoped their Lordships would not sanction this great change, which would lead to much unpleasantness amongst the rural population. Unless the Amendment were accepted the peace of many a quiet home would be disturbed.
  Amendment moved,
  In Sub-section (2), page 2, line 36, to leave out ("or marriage").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON, in opposing the Amendment, said the noble Earl had mixed up two things which it was desirable to keep distinct, and had referred to the franchise of married women. The proposal in the sub-section was that married women should be allowed to be members of the Parish Council. Married women had frequently been elected and had sat on Boards of Guardians and on School Boards, and some of them had shown themselves to be most valuable members. He believed they would also be very useful and valuable members of Parish and District Councils.
  Amendment negatived.
  EARL STANHOPEwished to raise a question as to the length of office of the Parish Councillors. One year seemed to him a very short term. In County Councils he had noticed that the members took a very considerable time to learn their work. Parish Councils, like the
  1696
  County Councils, would meet very few times in the year—perhaps four times—and it seemed almost impossible for a man to learn his work in the short time if only elected for a year. It was very important that there should be tried and experienced persons on the Parish Councils, and these elections would become wearisome if occurring too often. If the Government did not accept his Amendment of three years he hoped they would see fit to lengthen the time from one year to a longer period.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 2, line 38, to leave out the word ("one") and insert the word ("three").—(The Earl Stanhope.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONpointed out that at the present time parochial officers were elected annually, and said he saw no reason why the term of office of Parish Councillors should be prolonged for three years. The County Councillors had more difficult business to deal with than these Parochial Councillors would have. Although of great importance to the people themselves, these parish matters were comparatively small. The people themselves would be intimately acquainted with them, and there could not be the complications which existed in county business. He hoped the Committee would continue the principle of annual appointments.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONagreed with the noble Marquess. One year was long enough, in his opinion, to learn the business of a parish officer, and, therefore, to continue the men in office three years was unnecessary. These Councillors would not have a great deal to do, and—if he might say it without being thought heretical—he did not think the labourer would take such a great interest in parochial affairs as was expected of him.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Before we go to the next Amendment I would like to ask the noble Marquess opposite whether he adheres with great tenacity to the 15th day of April? It is very unfortunate to have selected a day that is within the range of Easter, because a certain number of people are likely to be away, and there is a certain amount of business which must be done.

  1697
  I have received representations that a fortnight later would be much more convenient. I do not know what motive can have made the Government select April 15.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I am afraid I cannot make out at this moment any very elaborate argument in favour of April 15. It is entirely a question for the Department, and I will see about the date on the Report stage. Personally, I have no attachment to this particular day.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved—
  After Sub-section (5), to insert, as a new sub-section: "The Parish Councillors shall be nominated in writing at a parish meeting, and, if no more candidates are nominated than there are vacancies to be filled, the candidates nominated may be elected by the meeting, but if the number of candidates exceeds the number of vacancies to be filled, and is not reduced by notice or notices of withdrawal received by the chairman of the meeting within three days after such meeting from any of the candidates so nominated, a poll shall be taken as provided by this Act with respect to polls consequent on parish meetings."
  He said, this clause was one which was originally in the Government Bill, and it seemed to him a very important provision. If there were only sufficient Parish Councillors nominated at the meeting for all the vacancies they ought then and there to lie elected without putting the parish to any further trouble.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONexplained the reason of the withdrawal of the clause. in the course of the discussion in the other House it was decided that it would be desirable to leave a great deal more to Rules to be made by the Local Government Board than was at first imposed, and it would somewhat relieve the Bill from detailed provisions. He was obliged to oppose the Amendment, because, as now arranged, the Bill left those matters to be dealt with by the Local Government Board.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  EARL PERCYthought seven days' notice under Sub-section 7 might possibly fall on a day during the Easter holidays, or the Parish Council might possibly be convened for Good Friday. It would be better to leave a margin of four or five days on which the Council could meet, so as not
  1698
  to interfere with Holy Week. It would be wiser to allow more latitude.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 10, to leave out the word ("seven") and insert the word ("fourteen"). —(The Earl Privy.)
  EARL SPENCERsaid, a good deal would depend on the answer given to the question of the Marquess of Salisbury with regard to April 15. The reason the Government preferred seven days' to 14 days' notice was that it was thought desirable that when the Parish Council was elected they should meet together as quickly as possible.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord made this appeal from an ecclesiastical point of view. I wish to support it from a more vulgar point of view. A vast number of Her Majesty's subjects look upon Easter as a holiday. In the North of England it is usual to be married on Maunday Thursday, so that the five following days should operate as a honeymoon. I press very earnestly on the Government the expediency of altering their date.
  EARL SPENCER: The Government do not understand that the noble Marquess objects to seven, but rather to the date being April 15.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is so.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: This is part of the question which the noble Marquess raised just now.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Earl Percy, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 3, line 14, after the word ("or") to insert the word ("from.")
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Use of schoolroom).
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMmoved to leave out the words—
  "Vested in the Parish Council or in the chairman of a parish meeting and the Overseers,"
  holding that the clause as it stood would interfere very much with the education and the general arrangements of the parish schoolmaster. He did not see the need of taking the rooms in this way, and it was not desirable to occupy parish schoolrooms more than was necessary. He therefore urged that every facility

  1699
  should be given for the use of other rooms. It was with the object that other rooms rather than the school should be used that he moved his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 31, to leave out from the word ("room") to the word ("which") in line 32.—(The Earl of Feverham.)
  EARL SPENCER: So far as the Government understand the noble Lord's proposal, it is that if there is any room in the village available, whether vested in the parish or not, it is not desirable to use the school. The Government would rather leave the clause as it stands, but they see no very great objection to what the noble Lord has proposed.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I should be glad if the Government would agree to this Amendment, not only because it is extremely desirable that the schoolrooms should be relieved absolutely when it can be done, but also because these words—
  "Vested in the Parish Council or in the chairman of a parish meeting and the Overseers,"
  are very restricted, and would unnecessarily limit the public rooms.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved to omit the word "or" at the end of Sub-section (b.) He said: This is the first of a series of consequential Amendments, the object of which is to limit the compulsory use of the schoolroom to the meetings of the Parish Council or the parish meeting, or to inquiries instituted for parochial purposes by the Local Government Board or any other Government Department or Local Authority. This part of the Bill has been altered from the form in which it was introduced by the Government. In the form in which it was introduced it was proposed to use the schoolrooms, whether Board schools or the rooms of voluntary schools, which were sometimes absolutely private property, only for the purpose of parish meetings and Parish Councils when there was no other available public room. But the additions which have been made are of such a nature that, taken altogether, they tend altogether to alter the character of the tenure and use of these schoolrooms. They will be loaded with an indefinite quantity of
  1700
  secular business, entirely unconnected with the proper use of the room, and without any remuneration whatever to the managers. Very imperfect provisions are made even for indemnity against damage and expense. In dealing with this subject certain principles ought to be borne in mind. These rooms do not belong to the parish at all, or to the Parish Council. The property is not vested in the Committee of the Council on Education, because certain grants have been made on certain terms to encourage efficiency in the schools. In the case of Board schools, where they have been created out of the rates and are maintained out of the rates, they do not belong to the Education Department or to the Government, merely because, for reasons connected with the interests of education, grants-in-aid have been made to the schools. Still less do the schools belong to the Government when they have been built and are supported by private persons, whether aided or not by the State. If one has to-examine the principle on which any proposal of this kind can be made, it is not that the public have any right to these school buildings so as to entitle them to dictate their use. It can only be that Parliament, which from year to year makes certain grants-in-aid, may, if it sees fit, attach new conditions for those grants. To make conditions which practically alter the proper use of the schoolrooms would be a monstrous departure from the principle upon which these grants have been given—a departure, perhaps, more open to objection at the present time than at any other time, because the Education Department has of late shown a disposition to be very exacting in everything with regard to the buildings. This is not the time for altering the entire character of school buildings and turning them practically into parish rooms for general use for a great variety of secular purposes. Admitting, as I do, that Parliament is mistress of its own grants, and therefore can attach new conditions, I am not disposed to take exception to anything which is moderate and reasonable, founded upon some virtual necessity, and not, likely in practice to interfere largely with the proper use or maintenance of our schools. I have, therefore, not, proposed to omit the power originally

  1701
  asked for by the Government—to use these schools, in the absence of suitable public rooms, for parish meetings or meetings of the Parish Council. I have gone further, and have acquiesced in their use for inquiries for parochial purposes by the Local Government Board or any other Public Authority. I have done so for these reasons: First of all, the purpose is a definite one, and, on the principles of this Bill, necessary, that there should be some provision for the parish meetings and the meetings of the Council. I do not see that the use of the rooms so limited would involve any such large or frequent interference with its use for the ordinary purposes as to cause great inconvenience or great risk of damage or expense or harassing annoyance. These are schools that have been built, paid for, and maintained out of the rates for Board schools, or by voluntary contributions for the purposes of education—one of the most important purposes possible—and any interference with them of a harassing kind would be most objectionable. But with regard to this clause, "Holding meetings to discuss any question relating to allotments," who are to hold the meetings, who are to convene them, and who are to be responsible for their conduct? Under this clause anybody might hold a series of meetings, consecutively or otherwise, for many days. If there are other people than the Parish Meetings and Councils who want to discuss the question of allotments they ought to find a meeting place for themselves. Next comes the use of the rooms for the purposes of candidature. As the clause stands, the schoolroom will lie at the absolute disposal of any number of candidates for the Parish or District Council. This is setting a new and most undesirable precedent. The sub-section providing for the reimbursement of expense caused and damage done to the schoolroom in connection with such meetings is open to much objection. Apparently the managers of the school, when the meeting was called for the purpose of the candidature of any person, were to look to that person for the repayment of any damage. This remedy, besides throwing an unfair burden on the managers, would in many cases be of no avail whatever. Nobody could tell who would be candidates for these Councils; but I can say, with confidence, that it is part of the policy of the Bill that the candidature of persons
  1702
  of very small means should be encouraged. Are you to enable those persons, however small their moans, to use these rooms as often as they like, and as many candidates as there might be, and then say to the managers, with a sort of cynical irony—"You must look to those men for payment for any expense or damage." Although these people may be quite respectable, they may not be responsible persons; they may be, in a pecuniary sense, "men of straw." The other sub-section, which I propose to omit, enables all committees or officers, appointed by all or any of four different bodies—Parisli Meetings, Parish Councils, County Councils, or District Councils, to administer public funds within or for the purposes of the parish, to use these schoolrooms as their offices, whenever and as often as they please. The purpose would include the whole financial business of the Parish Meeting or Parish Council; and there is no limit to the frequency of the meetings of such committees or officers. And for this, there is no necessity whatever; their numbers would be few, and they might easily meet elsewhere. With regard to these uses of the school, what is the safeguard? Simply that the school is not to be taken during hours when it is being used as a day school or evening school; that is the only safeguard. So that the schoolmasters and mistresses or caretakers will be kept in attendance, and their time occupied, nobody knows how long and how many days in the year, all without any payment to the managers. There will be great wear and tear, and great friction and difficulty, both in apportioning the cost and in recovering it. The country has not had time to be perfectly alive to this yet, because when the Bill was introduced none of these things were in it. People were now in great alarm; and I have received expressions of that alarm from authorities entitled to great weight, both in Liverpool and in Cornwall. I protest against this invasion of our schoolrooms for purposes neither legitimate nor necessary. These are most serious encroachments upon the principle for which the public grants have been made, and I shall certainly ask the opinion of the Committee upon these Amendments.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out the word ("or") from subsection (b).—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Before I deal with the general argument of my noble and learned Friend, I should like to revert to the point he made as to the reimbursement of damage where candidates have the use of the schoolroom. I agree entirely with the argument that it would be most unfair to the managers of the voluntary schools that they should be left simply to the remedy of going to the candidate to recover the expenses. I am assured, however, that the intention of the clause is that the damage shall be reimbursed in the first instance from the rates, and then that those having charge of the rates shall recover the amount, if they can, from the candidate. That seems perfectly just. If, however, this is not clear from the language of the clause, I am prepared to insert words to make this perfectly clear. It is very easy indeed to say, "Hire a place of meeting somewhere or other, but not the school"; but in that case in many villages the people will be driven to hold their meetings in public-house or it will be impossible to hold them at; all. I must take exception to the use of the term "our schoolrooms" on the part of the noble and learned Lord. I deny that schoolrooms which are supported to a very large extent out of the taxes of the country are "our schools." They are schools which are used for the purposes of elementary education. The voluntary subscribers contribute a certain sum towards them, but it is by no means equal to the contribution from the Public Exchequer, and the schoolrooms must be looked upon, to a certain extent, as public buildings. I have no wish to encroach upon the fair and just rights of the managers of voluntary schools. As to the proposal to strike out paragraph (c) under the Allotments Act passed under the auspices of the late Government in 1890, provision was made for the use, free of charge, of any school receiving grants out of moneys provided by Parliament for public meetings or a public inquiry under the Act.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With consent.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: In most rural parishes it is practically impossible to find another place where a
  1704
  meeting can be held for any purpose; and, in these circumstances, it is not unreasonable that the schoolroom should be used for a purpose of such importance to the community as that of allotments. Then the noble and learned Lord said there is no safeguard except the one he mentioned. But he forgot that under this' Bill, if any question arises under this section as to what is reasonable or suitable, it may be determined in the case of a schoolhouse by the Department. That is very reasonable. Whoever presides over the Education Department it may be taken that he will preside over it in the interests of education, and will consider education before anything else. I cannot agree to the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
  THE DUKE OF NORFOLKprotested against the statement of the noble Lord opposite, that these schools were not the property of those who built them because the State aided them by means of an annual grant for the work that was done in them. The money received from the State was not in any sense for the building, but for the work which was carried on in those buildings. A large number of schools had been built by voluntary subscription since 1872, and even now, whenever alterations had to be made, they were made at the expense of the owners, and not out of the rates. The owners of voluntary schools were painfully conscious of this fact at the present moment. It was extremely important that it should be distinctly understood that in allowing their schoolrooms to be used for any other than school purposes the owners were making a gracious concession, and were not in any way admitting the justice of a claim to the use of their schoolrooms.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, that he also desired to protest against the contention of the noble Earl, that voluntary schoolrooms were public property.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the noble Earl behind him appeared to have misunderstood what he had said upon the point. What he had protested against was the use of the words "our schools" by noble Lords opposite, on the ground that they received large contributions from the Public Exchequer, and, therefore, could not be regarded as being private property.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, that he had the misfortune of having largely to maintain five of these voluntary schools. In four of the parishes in which they were situated he was the exclusive owner. It had been stated that any damage that was done to the schoolrooms in consequence of their being used for the purposes of the clause would be made good out of the rates. Bat the rates would fall upon the owners, who would have the additional odium east upon them of endeavouring to recover damages from men who in most cases would be practically paupers. He agreed with the Earl of Selborne that it was not fair either to education or to the general, moral, or intellectual welfare of the parishes that the schoolrooms should be used for these purposes. He hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a Division.
  LORD NORTONwas very much surprised that the arguments of the Earl of Selborne had not been supported at all by the right rev. Prelates. He should like to know, if the contention of the Government was well founded, that the public have a right to any room if they have no better, what was to prevent the electors from using any private house for the purpose of holding meetings? If there were no proper rooms for holding meetings, why should they not make them? Under this clause the rooms of voluntary schools were to be used free of charge; often Board schoolrooms were used on a Sunday for various purposes, but always a charge was made and a guarantee against damage had to be given. In these days, when many persons were seeking the most rapid way to notoriety, there was no cheaper way of self-advertisement than coming forward as a candidate for a seat on one of these Local Bodies, and it was a needless facility to allow them to dismantle schoolrooms for their gratuitous convenience for this purpose.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, he might have used the expression "our schools," though he could not recollect the exact context in which he used it, but he would repeat it in this sense, which was certainly in his mind at the time: that the whole public were interested in education, and in all these schools. To take the use of the schoolrooms on this enormous scale, and for these most unnecessary purposes,
  1706
  was an injury to everybody all through the country who was interested in education. The pretext for doing this was that because one thing was paid for another could he taken. Against such a principle he emphatically protested. The purposes for which the schoolrooms would be used under the Allotments Act of the late Government were limited and well defined; and, for anything further, consent was required by that Act. If his Amendments were adopted, the schoolrooms might still be used for any of these purposes, if the managers consented to it. But these compulsory provisions were at once oppressive and unnecessary. Surely the meetings of committees and of officers would not re-require large rooms. The Government might trust such committees and officers to hire suitable rooms in public-houses without any evil consequences, if no other rooms were available.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): The noble and learned Earl has suggested that it was intended to authorise the use of these schools in such a way as to interfere with education. That is a mere pretext. Nobody intended or thought that these schools would be so used as to interfere with their primary purpose of education, and any words that would safeguard them against such a result will be accepted by the Government without the slightest difficulty. The noble Earl (Lord Harrowby) appealed to the Prelates, but I doubt whether those who support the Amendment will be acting in the true interests of voluntary schools. If the people throughout the country were to learn that a room existing in a parish and which might perfectly well be used for these purposes was unavailable, there would be nothing more likely to drive the people into hostility to voluntary schools and cause them to favour Board schools. Nothing could be more likely to shake the foundation upon which the voluntary schools stand than a dog-in-the-manger policy, for that is what it comes to. Nobody suggests that the schools should be used in such a way as to interfere with educational purposes. It is said that the rooms are open to use with the permission of the managers; but noble Lords know that the managers often take the course of only allowing the schools to be used for purposes with which they

  1707
  are in sympathy. ["No, no!"] Will any noble Lord venture to assert that that has not been done? ["Yes!"] If noble Lords opposite think otherwise, they are very imperfectly instructed in the ordinary channels of information. Either their information or my own is extremely incorrect, and I fail to see why my information is more incorrect than theirs. Avery strong feeling exists, and is increasing, in regard to this matter, on account of the school managers not having exhibited impartiality in respect to the letting of the schools. Nothing will more tend to the popularity of the National schools than that they should be used for these purposes. This particular Amendment refers to the Allotments Act. The Act passed by the late Government recognised that as a reasonable use.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: With consent.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If it is a reasonable use with consent so much so that you put it into an Act of Parliament, surely it will be well to secure that that reasonable use will not be refused capriciously or unreasonably, [f that can be contemplated by the Legislature as one of the uses to which the school can be properly put, it is reasonable that it should be done without it being left to the particular caprice of one of the managers of the school. Nobody proposes that it should be used when it would be required for other purposes. The question is whether, when it is not required for other purposes, it is not reasonable and right to give the use? If this clause is struck out by your Lordships' House it will not tend to the popularity of the voluntary schools.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I wish to point out that I did not confine my argument to voluntary schools. I think it applies equally, though not exactly, in the same way in all respects to Board schools.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord appears to think that the time for argument has passed and the time for menace has arrived, and that what he cannot obtain by argument he can obtain by threatening us with the results of our vote. But the menace of the noble and learned Lord appears to show, to use his own words, not only that he has failed
  1708
  to inform his mind through the ordinary channels of information, but that he has failed to obtain the slightest insight into the feeling of those who live in the rural parishes. The noble and learned Lord has drifted away from the main question at issue—to whom do these schools belong? They are said to be public buildings; but what have the public to do with them? The public, it is true, contributes to pay certain persons to carry on the work in the schools belonging to other persons. Does he mean to say that for this reason the public have an unlimited right over these schools? Will the noble and learned Lord apply his argument to other property? If he hires a coachhouse to put a carriage in it, will he say he has the right to use it as a warehouse or other purpose? Such a claim with regard to property the noble Lord would not in his more reflective moments have made if he had not been forced by the exigencies of Party in the other House to defend proposals incapable of defence. I do not say that anybody desires to say anything against education, but there are many people who do not care how much they interfere with education if they can gain a Party vote by doing so. I must protest very much against this extraordinary doctrine: that people who are thought fit to be trusted with the government of our parishes are not able to meet in a room in a public-house without making beasts of themselves. It is the most extraordinary view of the qualifications of the Parish Councillors that I have ever heard. I, at least, would trust the people not to get drunk when performing important public functions. The speeches which have been made against allowing meetings to be held in public-houses are mere Puritanical hypocrisy. I think the right rev. Bench have been perfectly well advised in not taking part in this discussion. It is the laity who, in the main, have furnished these schools; it is the laity who desire that they shall be kept for the purpose for which they were built, and it is for the laity to see that justice is done in the matter.
  LORD FARRERsaid, that he lived in a parish with a perfectly voluntary school system, and the schoolhouse was let for every public purpose for which was desired. One day it might be used

  1709
  by a Tory candidate, and the next day by a Radical candidate for the purposes of meetings. He was quite certain that the popularity of our voluntary schools was immensely increased by allowing the rooms to be used in the most impartial manner. If the present clause were passed, they would be in exactly the same position as they were now.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYquite agreed with Lord Farrer as to the desirability of impartiality in the use of the schoolrooms; and, from his knowledge of the schools in his own and many other villages, he could say that they were used with absolute freedom. He would, however, like to point out that if a great number of additional uses were to be imposed upon these school buildings, the educational purposes for which they were primarily intended would be very seriously interfered with. After ordinary school hours were over, the schoolrooms were often required for the work of pupil teachers, for examinations, and other purposes. There were many places in which the windows of the school shone nearly every evening, occupied as it was with many useful works connected with education, and almost more importantly with social life. He was quite sure that the schools would become unavailable for their own strictly educational purposes if this mass of extra work were thrown upon them. It was a very serious matter for Churchmen to be told that the use of their schools could be claimed for all these purposes, but it was still more serious when they were informed that the schools which they had built and maintained were not their own. They had built and maintained the schools, and were now being made to feel very seriously in all parts of the country that such was the case. The wording of the clause was fallacious when it provided that use was to be made of
  "any suitable room in the schoolhouse of any public elementary school receiving a grant out of moneys provided by Parliament,"
  because no money was provided by Parliament for the school—as meaning school—buildings; it was paid only to persons who did certain work within the schools. It was impossible for all this extra occupation to be thrown upon the schools without a great deal of wear and tear, and without considerable additional expense being
  1710
  imposed at the very moment when the managers were straining every nerve to keep up their schools for their proper uses. The noble Earl the Leader of the House had said that upon these clauses depended the smooth working of the measure. He entirely agreed with that, for he was perfectly certain that the work of the managers of the schools and the whole voluntary system would be much disturbed if the clause were passed. He felt sure that to force this provision upon the voluntary schools would make the greatest possible difference to the way in which the measure would be received. As their Lordships knew, from what he had already stated, he was not at all unfavourable to the measure. Speaking as a friend, and not as an enemy, of the Bill at large, he asserted without hesitation that, if schools were taken out of the hands of Churchmen on the assumption that they were not their own property, and given to those who were indifferent or adverse to Church life, it would make the whole difference as to the way in which the measure was received.
  VISCOUNT CROSScould not understand the heat which the Lord Chancellor had imported into the question. The matter ought to be argued in the quietest possible way in regard to injury to existing institutions. He had been concerned in the management of a school for a long time, and took the deepest interest in it. He could inform the noble and learned Lord that that school was open every evening, and that even if this Bill passed there would be no opportunity for its being used without altogether dislocating the educational and social purposes to which it was devoted. A storm of indignation would certainly be aroused if any of the uses of the schoolroom were disturbed for the purposes mentioned in the Bill; but whether School Boards were forced upon them or not, no one could take away the property of Church schools from those to whom they belonged. The noble and learned Lord should consider this question not simply in reference to the Allotments Act. If the section were passed in its integrity it would take away the use of the schoolrooms in the evenings when they were often most required. If the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to the whole of the section he would see that the proposed use of the

  1711
  schools for meetings under the Allotments Act, and Parish or District Council meetings, would interfere with the proper uses of the school. It was all very well to say that the schools received money from public sources, and that School Boards might be thrust upon them, but no one could deprive those to whom the schools belonged of the property in them.
  THE BISHOP OF ELY, speaking on behalf of the country clergymen, referred to a recent correspondence in reference to a charge that the clergy had used their doles for improper purposes. The person who made the allegation had been challenged to give a case, and had failed to do so. They were asked whether they denied that the use of the Church schools was granted to one party and refused to another. Lord Chelmsford had asked for the instance of a single school as a test, and he ventured to ask the noble and learned Lord whether the statement could be proved? If their Lordships referred to the speeches made in the House of Commons they would see how the facts stood.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)had not the slightest doubt that the statement could be proved, or as to its accuracy; but he admitted that it was not of universal application, and that it did not even apply to the majority of Church schools. If the object were to guard against the use of the schools for the purposes named in the Bill when otherwise they would be used for educational purposes, there would not be the slightest objection on the part of the Government to the introduction of words which would make that absolutely clear.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONwished to emphasise the serious difficulty in which school managers would be placed by such a large addition to the use of the schools as this section of the Bill proposed, for he considered it quite certain that, over and above any damage or expense incurred at the time, there would be an amount of wear and tear which could not be estimated in any such way, and at the end of the year managers would find that their Bill for repairs had mounted up very considerably. This would occur at a time when of all people they were the most heavily weighted by burdens of this kind. He was the other day at a
  1712
  school which he considered a very good one, but the manager told him that he had been "warned" by the Education Department on the ground that the walls of the school were too thin. That was an illustration of what was going on all round, and school managers were at their wits' end to know how to repair their schools to the satisfaction of the Education Department. If people were to have the free use of the schoolrooms in the way proposed, some further grant should be made either from the parish or by Government, to enable them to bear the additional cost of repairs, which he was certain would he very heavy.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of Morley)asked whether a Division was challenged by the noble and learned Earl (Lord Selborue) on the omission of the word "or"?
  THE MAKQUESS OF SALISBURY: We have already taken one Division on the word "either;" I think we had better not take another on "or."
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYquite agreed.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, lines 40, 42, to leave out Subsection (c.).— (The Earl of Selborne.)
  On Question, whether Sub-section (c) shall stand part of the Clause? their Lordships divided:—Contents 28; Not-Contents 148.
  On the Motion of the Earl of SELBORNE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
  In page 4, lines 1 to 5, to leave out Subsection (d) and (e)
  EARL PERCYmoved—
  In page 4, line 13, after the word ("school"), to insert the words ("nor, in the case of a room used for the administration of justice or police, with the hours during which it is used for these purposes").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had no objection.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved—
  In page 4, line 16, after the word ("room")' to insert ("or to the building of which the room is part, or its appurtenances").
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 4, lines 19 to 22, to leave out all after ("be"), in line 19, to the word ("convened") inclusive in line 22, and to insert ("and the amount of such expense, together with the cost of making good such damage, shall be a debt payable upon demand to the persons having control over the room").—(The Marl of Selborne.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was informed there was no objection to this Amendment, but he was not quite certain it would have the effect desired, because, as he understood, it would not put the cost of the damage on the rates. It was surely not desired that the managers should be left to get the money from the candidates when the use was for election purposes.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, this had nothing to do with the candidates. As the clause stood, the candidate was left out. The words were that the
  "amount of such expense, together with the cost of making good such damage, shall be a debt payable upon demand to the persons having control over the room."
  That would be a debt from the Council. His proposal was that the cost and damage should be payable like any other debt of the Parish Council, and should be recoverable if not paid.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)asked whether that was necessary? If the cost was to be defrayed as part of the expenses the amount would no doubt have to be paid. It was a statutory claim payable out of the rates, like anything else.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, as this was a claim for reimbursement which in some way must be reduced into a liquidated form, it would be right to make it a debt payable on demand. Nothing but a demand would inform the Council what was the expense or the cost of repairing the damage.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the next Amendment was covered by what had already been done.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out the words ("but when the meeting is called for the purpose of the candidature of any person, such expense or damage shall be reimbursed by the persons by whom or on whose behalf the meeting is convened").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved—
  In page 4, line 27, after the word ("Board") to add the words ("Provided that every notice under this section shall be in writing, signed by some person claiming to be entitled to give the same, and shall be given seven clear days at least before the time at which the use of the room is required, and shall state the purpose for which it is required, and no time shall be held reasonable for that purpose in case of dispute which shall have been fixed previously to such notice for the use of the room for any other lawful purpose, by other persons besides those having control over the same").
  The clause as it stood gave the Education Department power to determine any question as to what was reasonable or suitable, but it was desirable that a minimum notice should be provided for, and that the notice should state for what purpose the room was required. Further, no room should be left for doubt that previous appointments were not to be disturbed in case of other persons obtaining the control over the room and wishing to change the arrangements. Some of these might be for serious objects, such as missionary meetings, or lectures; some for the amusement of the people, in a way more lively than parish meetings; magic lanterns, perhaps, or other forms of entertainment. Those matters should not be left so as to require, in every case, an appeal to the Education Department.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, there was no objection to the first part of the clause, except that seven days seemed rather too long, as in the case of these Parish Council meetings the official inquiries on behalf of the County Council were to be made by the Local Government Board. Three days would appear sufficient.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, if the noble Marquess thought seven days' notice too much, he, on the other hand, thought three days too little, and would suggest five.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the purposes for which the rooms could be taken were so limited that it was going a long way to say they should not be used at times fixed previously for other meetings. Under this Amendment the Parish Council might be blocked out of the room for a month, and the purpose of the clause which the noble and learned Earl had accepted would be evaded.

  1715
  The matter should not be left open to an evasion of that kind, which might, under certain circumstances, take place.
  THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYasked whether "reasonable time" would ox-elude Sundays? Many schools were used for religious services on Sundays as well as on week-days.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwas astonished to hear a comparison between magic lantern performances and the duties of Parish Councils in point of importance. This was reducing the whole thing to the ridiculous. The Parish Council business could not be interfered with for trumpery purposes of that kind. With regard to interference with missionary meetings, arrangements would 110 doubt be made to suit the convenience of everybody. The matter should be left to the Education Department, as there wore unreasonable people in all parts of the world ready to take advantage of every loop-hole, and magic lantern performances, or rubbish of that kind, could be easily made use of for that purpose.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEthought the noble Earl should feel obliged to him for the present of a magic lantern to play with in his reply. He had not compared magic lanterns in importance with the Parish Council business, but he was thinking of what fell from a noble Lord, a supporter of-the Government, on the Second Reading of this Bill, who ended his speech by saying that he thought the Bill would add to the liveliness of rural life. If the seven days were reduced to five, time would not allow of an appeal to the Education Department.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYwould agree to seven days' notice.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE, to remove difficulty, proposed to omit the words after "purpose for which it is re-required."
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Powers and duties of Parish Councils and parish meetings.
  Clause 5 (Parish Council to appoint Overseers).
  EARL STANHOPEmoved—
  In page 3, line 16, to leave out the words ("until his successor is elected"), and insert the words ("three years").
  1716
  This had reference to the interest in property vested in Churchwardens being taken away. Sometimes it happened that Churchwardens had duties legally vested in them. In his own parish they were managers of the National school under a charity scheme. Under this clause they would be deprived of that function, and there were other like cases.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 3, line 16, to leave out the words ("until his successor is elected"), and insert the words ("three years").—(The Earl Stunbury.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, if "Churchwardens" were omitted difficulty would be created. This was not an ecclesiastical question at all. Charities purely secular existed in great variety, vested in Churchwardens and Overseers under the terms of the general Act applying to most of these cases. It would be altogether inconsistent with the clear intention of the Act to omit these words, which covered secular without touching ecclesiastical charities.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYmoved—
  In page 5, line 7, after the word ("Church"), to insert the words ("or with any elementary or Sunday school connected with any particular Church or denomination").
  His object was to make it clear that not only property connected with the Church was safeguarded from being transferred to the Parish Council, but also that elementary or Sunday schools should remain perfectly safe. A later section was supposed to save the elementary schools, but the words of Clauses 5 and 6 seemed to be very sweeping in regard to transferrenee from Churchwardens to the Parish Councils.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 7, after the word ("Church"), to insert the words ("or with any elementary or Sunday school connected with any particular Church or denomination").—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the case was altogether covered by Clause 60, which provided that—
  "Nothing in this Act shall affect the trusteeship, management, or control of any elementary school for education in the principles of any particular Church or denomination."

  1717
  That absolutely excluded elementary schools. Then as to Sunday schools, Clause 69, Sub-section (c), provided that "ecclesiastical charity" included any held
  "for use, if a building, as a church, chapel, mission room, or Sunday school, or otherwise by any particular Church or denomination."
  That entirely excluded Sunday schools from the operation of the Act.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked whether the noble Earl would accept these words as giving greater security?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the Committee was only dealing now with the question of endowments. Unless an endowment were in question the section would not apply.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYpointed out, in reference to the words "connected with any particular Church or denomination," that there used to be a large class of schools connected with Bible Societies not belonging to any particular Church or denomination. It was surely not intended to transfer them. Perhaps the noble Lord would examine into the point.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the intention of the clause was obvious, and if it were not wide enough he was quite willing to make it so. He would make a note of the point.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYasked the noble Lord for a promise that these words should be inserted.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would inquire into the matter, and at a future stage of the Bill state the result. It was a question of drafting, and the intention was plain, but it was undesirable at present to interfere with the clause.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Transfer of certain powers of Vestry and other authorities to Parish Councils).
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAmoved to except from the powers of the Vestry to be transferred by the clause to the Parish Council the power to order owners to be rated instead of occupiers under the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869. He regarded this as one of the most important Amend-
  1718
  ments which their Lordships would have to consider. He believed there was some doubt existing with regard to the Constitutional question whether that House was not trenching upon the Privileges of the other House of Parliament by in any way assuming to alter a clause which dealt with the distribution of money and the imposition of rates for public purposes. He was quite aware of the Constitutional doctrine which prevented that House from dealing with Money Bills; but, as he had always understood it, that was confined to money voted by Parliament. The rates with which they wore dealing in this clause could not be said in any sense to be voted by Parliament. He thought it was not too much to say that a great deal of the apprehension which many of their Lordships felt with regard to the provisions of this Bill arose from the fact that, as the Bill at present stood, the power of levying rates was not at all linked, as it always should be, with the duty of those who made the rates to pay them. Among the powers transferred by this clause was the power given to the Vestry by the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act of 1869 to enforce upon owners of property up to a certain rateable value the compounding of their rates in return for a certain per-i centage allowed to them on payment. That power was not given on the principle of altering the incidence of the rate from the occupier to the owner, but it was simply a matter of administrative convenience. In view, however, of the great question of principle the were now discussing, he thought most of their Lordships would agree that all considerations of administrative convenience must give way to the old principle that taxation and representation must go together. Did "the compound householder" (which he considered the most extraordinary description of a human being it was possible to imagine) actually pay his rates at the present moment? The President of the Local Government Board, in his speech in the other House on the Second Reading of the Billon November 2, said—
  "I do not admit that the man who is not directly rated pays no rates; I am prepared to admit that the man who pays rent pays rates."
  But subsequently the right hon. Gentleman modified his statement in his speech on Report on the 11th of January, for he said he believed that

  1719
  "where a rate was levied on the landlord the tenant, in some shape or other, or to some extent, paid a portion of the rate in his rent."
  Noble Lords present let cottages on their estates in all parts of the country at from 30 to 40 per cent, below their commercial value. In every village they could see other cottages let considerably above the rents at which they let their own. It could not be contended that a tenant who was not even paying a rack-rent for his house was paying rates in addition. As had been already pointed out, sweeping changes in the administration of the Poor Law had been introduced by the Bill, and no doubt many of their Lordships were of opinion that it would be wiser and safer to eliminate altogether the clauses relating to the Poor Law. They were aware, however, that the labourers desired, and natually desired, more direct representation on Boards of Guardians, and for this reason those clauses were retained; but that being so, it was doubtful if the enormous number of people to whom it was proposed by the Bill to hand over the power to pay rates ought any longer to be allowed, merely for the sake of administrative convenience, to escape direct and personal payment of the rates. Even if the compound householder did theoretically pay rates, he did not pay them consciously, and so as to bring home to him that it was of importance to himself whether the rates were increased or diminished. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition had put down Amendments raising this question at a later part of the Bill; but he thought it was better to raise it at the first opportunity, because, if not, the Vestries would be given certain powers in the first part of the Bill which would be revoked later. The difference between his Amendment and that of the noble Marquess was that the former excluded the urban districts and the latter included them. The case for abolishing the compulsory compound householder was much stronger in the rural than in the urban districts. The Amendment would not necessarily involve any interference with the present administration of the law; but it would give power, in any locality where there was a disposition to embark in unnecessary or excessive expenditure, to separate the rates from the rent. As the Bill stood, the great ratepayers—the tenant farmers—did not seem to have been consulted in any
  1720
  single line of it. He was sure that the agricultural labourer did not wish to be placed under the temptation of misusing the power which was to be conferred on him in directing his parochial affairs to the detriment of any other class.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 10, after the word ("except"), to insert—("(1.) The power to order owners to be rated instead of occupiers under 'The Poor Kate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869.' which power, in the ease of rural parishes, shall cease and determine as from the passing of this Act; provided that owners who have been so rated before the passing of this Act shall continue to be so rated unless they shall give six months' notice in writing, to date from the 1st of January or the 1st of July next following the date of such notice, to the Overseers and to the occupiers of their property, of their intention to discontinue payment, and the owners shall be liable for the rate next succeeding the expiry of such notice only, and all future rates shall be collected from the occupier ").—(The Earl of Winchilsen.)
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsuggested that it was not convenient to raise the very important question of the compound householder, as it had been raised by the noble Earl. The result of abolishing the compound householder in the rural I districts would be very singular. By far the most convenient way of bringing the; subject under discussion was that provided by the Amendments of the noble Marquess at a later part of the Bill. I The question could not be dealt with shortly or off-hand; and he would ask the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment, knowing that the question raised by it must come before their Lordships; for discussion afterwards.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that he should be very 10th to stand in the way of his noble Friend, from whom their Lordships had had the advantage of hearing an admirable speech, and this was a subject with which the House needed to become familiarised, as it was one of the gravest which could be submitted to its decision. He agreed that this was not the most convenient part of the Bill at which to deal with the question, and, on the whole, he thought that the House would approach the subject more satisfactorily at an earlier hour in the evening in a fuller House. Therefore, he should not oppose the view of the Leader of the House.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREasked whether it would be possible later on to revive the noble Earl's proposal exactly

  1721
  in the same shape? It might be the conclusion of the House that it was desirable to abolish the power of compounding in rural districts, though it might be the opinion of the House that the power might be usefully retained in urban districts. It should be made clear that there was nothing in the Forms of the House to prevent the noble Earl moving his Amendment hereafter. It was simply withdrawn for the present.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, there was nothing to prevent that being done.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, his next Amendment upon Clause 6 was on the subject of closed churchyards. The clause transferred the obligations of Churchwardens in that respect as to maintenance and repair. The Burial Act of 1855 provided that where, by Order in Council, a churchyard or burial ground was closed, the Burial Board or Churchwardens, as the case might be, should maintain it in decent order, and should make the necessary repairs, and that the cost of doing so should be repaid by the Overseers out of the poor rate, in the absence of any fund legally chargeable with it. Such places in the rural districts were most frequently precincts of the church, and therefore, as a general rule, moneys applicable for the repair of the church given voluntarily would be likely, now that the church rates had been abolished, to be available also for the repair of these closed churchyards, so as to avoid throwing the pecuniary burden upon the Parish Council. The effect of the Amendment would be to suspend the contemplated transfer in each parish, until some demand should be made, under the Act of 1855, for the repayment of money expended for the maintenance or repairs of the churchyard; the obligations from that time forward would attach to the Parish Council. That seemed consonant with the reason of the case; and it would be for the pecuniary advantage of the ratepayers in most cases, by relieving them of a burden which might otherwise be cast upon them. In cases where the closed churchyards were not within the precincts of the church it was more probable that demand would actually be made for the payment of those expenses by the Parish
  1722
  Council. He hoped, therefore, that in the interest of the ratepayers the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 5, line 28, after ("1855") to add ("Provided that such obligations shall not in any particular ease be deemed to attach, unless or until the Churchwardens subsequently to the passing of this Act shall give a certificate, as in the Burial Act, 1855, provided, in order to obtain the repayment of such expenses out of the poor rate").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the object of Subsection (b) was to transfer to the Parish Councils these obligations, inasmuch as the money would be paid out of parish funds; and that being so, the management and control should be given to the Parish Council. The object of the Amendment seemed to be that the Churchwardens should be under no responsibility as regarded payment, but the objection to it was that under the section the Parish Council would have the control.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that if no certificate were given under the Act the obligations would not be transferred from the Churchwardens. Under the Amendment only one certificate would be given once for all, after which the control over the execution of all future works of the same kind would pass to the Parish Council.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that words providing "in the case of any particular parish" would be preferable.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEwas willing to move the Amendment in that form—
  "Provided that the obligation shall not in the case of any particular parish be deemed to attach."
  THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid, if the control of the churchyards was to pass into the hands of the Parish Council that might have a serious effect in regard to the removal of bodies, and so on.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the section only related to repairs. The word "control" was used in that sense.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, it would not transfer the churchyards from the jurisdiction of the Church.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid that was quite clear.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Lord BELPERasked whether any duties of Churchwardens and Overseers

  1723
  in regard to the management of village greens should be transferred? Obviously, they should be.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, it was difficult to carry in one's mind all the Acts of Parliament passed on the subject, and he would like to be himself enlightened on the point.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONwas afraid he could not enlighten the noble and learned Earl, but he was given to understand that in some parts of the country there were such powers in the hands of Churchwardens.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Transfer of powers under adoptive Acts).
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW, before moving his Amendment, asked the Lord Chancellor what was the effect of incorporating the adoptive Acts, and whether it would not be better to include all, and not merely some, of the duties and obligations under them?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, it was necessary to make the modification, showing how the conditions were to be brought into effect. For example, where the power to adopt was exercised for part of a rural parish the Acts might be adopted for that portion. This was to meet the conditions in those particular cases.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid, if that was so, he would move the Amendment, because, whatever duties or obligations Local Bodies had power to adopt under the Acts, in the interest of the ratepayers similar duties ought to fall on the Parish Council when those bodies became responsible.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 27, at the end of the Clause, add Sub-section (9):—("(9.) All the powers, duties, liabilities, and obligations conferred or imposed by any one of the adoptive Acts upon the authority charged with the execution of such Act shall apply to the parish meeting or Parish Council (as the case may be) of every parish which shall adopt such Act").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)understood that that was the ease—that the Acts were adopted; and then this particular sub-section was for the purpose of modifying the conditions by simply substituting the words appropriate to the case, not really altering the obligations at all.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWwas willing to withdraw his Amendment if all the conditions applied.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Additional powers of Parish Councils).
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWmoved to add, in regard to Sub-sections (a) and (b), which conferred somewhat important powers for acquiring buildings and land, that such powers should not be exercised without the consent of the parish meeting. Under Sub-section (2) of the same clause the Parish Council could not sell or exchange land or buildings without the consent of the parish meetings, and the exercise of those powers which involved toe expenditure of large sums of money ought not to be left in the hands of a small body which might become stereotyped and remain in office year after year, but should remain in the general body of electors.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7,line 30, after the word ("acquire") to insert the words ("with the consent of the parish meeting").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, he did not think the introduction of these words necessary. The noble Lord had himself admitted that it was clear the expenditure could not be incurred except with the consent of the parish meeting under the regulations, and in cases where no expenditure was incurred they would be deprived of the liberty which they ought to enjoy.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWexplained that the Parish Council could not sell land or buildings without consent; and he did not see why they should be able to buy without the consent of the parish meeting.
  LORD BELPERsaid, what was meant was buying land and buildings at the expense of the rates, but there could be no reason why the Parish Council should not acquire anything which might be presented to them by gift.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, that by Sub-section (g) the Council was empowered to accept and hold any gifts of property, real or personal, for the benefit of inhabitants of the parish.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, this was a matter of some importance in reference to the powers exer-

  1725
  cisable by Parish Councils, because the temptation to build more than could be paid for was a general failing among the human race. The temptation of having plans to approve and of snubbing architects would be something from which no Parish Council, however intelligent, could be expected to abstain, and it was desirable to take every security against a Parish Council crippling a parish by extravagance in building or the laying-out of recreation grounds without the consent of the parish meeting, which would give full opportunity for public discussion and for avoiding any extravagance which could be avoided.
  EARL SPENCERasked whether there was any real danger, seeing that the Parish Council could not exceed an expenditure of 3d. in the £] without the consent of the parish meeting? They could nor go beyond that on their own action, and it would be an exceedingly small building that could be set up by them under those conditions.
  THE MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, they might build in bits.
  THE EARL OK WEMYSSsaid, that 3d. was the original maximum of the expenditure of the School Board for London, and now the rate was up to 1s., and the school rates had reached £10,000,000 a year.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, he did not think 3d. was ever fixed as a maximum: it was thrown out as an idea.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, that Mr. Forster stated that 3d. would probably be the maximum required.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, the "public purposes" referred to, in lines 30 and 31, ought to be more accurately defined. There was nothing in the clause to prevent buildings being required for purposes of recreation, skating rinks, and so on, which were not within the purport of the Bill, lie therefore desired to confine it to purposes connected with parish business, and not to leave it applicable to gymnasiums, and things of that kind.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, lines 30 and 31, to leave out the words ("public offices and for meetings and other public purposes") and insert the words ("parish rooms and offices and other purposes connected with parish business").—(The Duh of Richmond and Gordon.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONwas disposed to think the word "public" unguarded was too wide, and said he would consider the matter with the permission of the House. That would apply to the three following Amendments proposed by Lord Onslow and Lord Belper.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  EARL STANHOPEmoved an Amendment to enable Parish Councils to draw up regulations for commons and for the improvement of commons. Under the Act for the regulation and improvement of commons applications must be made to the Board of Agriculture by persons interested in the commons. He was acquainted with an instance of a parish comprising a, common which was the scene of many orgies; bean-feasters and others frequented it on Bank Holidays, and it was very necessary that regulations should be drawn up for it. The persons most interested in the matter would lie the people elected on the Parish Council, and he hoped this reasonable proposal would be accepted by the Government.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 33, after the word ("and") in insert the words ("shall have power to apply to the Board of Agriculture under Clause 9 39 & 40 Vict. c. 56. For the Regulation and Improvement of Commons").—(The Stanhope.)
  EARL SPENCERsaid, it was doubtful whether this was a desirable object, and whether, if the power was given at all, it should not be given to the District Council. An Amendment to the effect had been already put down by Lord Thring.
  EARL STANHOPEasked that the point should be considered before the later stages of the Bill.
  VISCOUNT CROSSsaid, the matter was surely one that concerned the parish much more than the District Council. The parish would know all about the common, and what was necessary for its regulation. Surely, if the parish could be trusted about anything it might be trusted for this purpose without going to the District Council.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved, in paragraph (c) of Sub-section 1, to insert, after "open space," the words "other than a closed churchyard," with the object of excluding the Parish Council from

  1727
  turning closed country churchyards into public walks or pleasure grounds. This was necessary from the use of the words "open space," which were for the time being under the control of the Parish Council, or to the expense of which they had contributed, and, of course, under a previous clause they might have contributed to the expense of maintaining a closed churchyard. By the Act of 1890 such pleasure grounds might be let out for particular occasions for limited periods. Obviously, that was inapplicable to closed churchyards in the country, though in towns something of the kind was occasionally done.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 7, line 35, after the words ("open space"), to insert the words ("other than a closed churchyard").—(The. Earl of Selborne.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether the expression "open space other than a closed churchyard" would not cause the critics of Parliamentary language to blaspheme? Was there no possible method of avoiding that unfortunate juxtaposition?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the proposal would exclude not only those places to which the parish had contributed money, but those where they had the entire control of the expenditure. There were no powers under the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1890 which might not be properly exercisable in respect of these churchyards.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, the particular clause of the Statute of 1875, to which alone this section referred, gave power to expend funds in the creation of public walks and pleasure grounds. That was hardly applicable to churchyards or the precincts of churches in the country, at all events. He never heard of any place in rural districts which it would be desirable to lay out in that manner. To entirely exclude these churchyards, therefore, would be the proper course.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)thought there was no impropriety in making a public walk through a churchyard, and to do so would often make a churchyard more "suitable and desirable" without offending or injuring anyone. That power the noble and learned Lord would take away in cases where the Parish Council had entire
  1728
  control. The Parish Council might surely be trusted to deal reasonably with any closed churchyard of which they had the control, or to the expense of which they had contributed.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEsaid, they simply bore the expense, and those matters were still within the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court if any question arose.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYproposed a small alteration in line 5, page 8. The words "without interfering" seemed ambiguous, and, if not objected to, the alteration appeared to be better English.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORassented.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORT DE RAMSEYmoved to insert, in addition to "Corporation," the words "Navigation or Land Drainage Authority." Certain bodies acting for these purposes were not Corporations, and it would be a hardship upon them, being under Act of Parliament, to have their water supply taken from them in a hot summer without redress.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 6, after the word ("Corporation"), to insert the words ("Navigation or Land Drainage Authority").—(The Lord Dr Ramsey.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, those bodies, if not Corporations, must be "persons."
  LORD DE RAMSEYasked whether "person" would cover a Local Authority for navigation or land drainage purposes?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONwas surprised to hear the noble Lord's statement. He was advised that such bodies wore Corporations.
  LORD DE RAMSEYsaid, some were, but some were not. In the fen country Public Bodies existed which were not Corporations.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the object in view was the same, but he would make further inquiries.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved an Amendment, which he thought would commend itself to Her Majesty's Government, because it was really the same as

  1729
  the President of the Local Government Board stated they had in view. It was to take care that the Parish Councils should not establish waterworks where there was an existing body able and willing to furnish a proper supply of water to the district. As the Bill was first introduced it contained words, at Sub-section (d) of the clause, to the effect that the Parish Councils might utilise any supply of water within their parishes. Objections were taken to that on the ground that it might interfere with the rights of Water Companies, and it was urged that the 52nd section of the Public Health Act should he made to apply. That section provided that a Local Authority should not construct waterworks within the limits of supply of an existing Water Company established by Act of Parliament, for and so long as such company was able and willing to afford a proper supply. When that remonstrance was made the President of the Local Government Board appeared to have been struck by the force of it, and he introduced words the substance of which were to prevent Parish Councils interfering in any way with the rights of any Water Companies. It was also, at the same time, stated in the course of the Debate, on the part of the Local Government Board, that Her Majesty's Government had no desire whatever to interfere with the existing bodies in giving power to any Parish Council to construct waterworks. It seemed desirable that those words should be imported from the 52nd section of the Public Health Act in reference to this important question. That proposal was not carried. It was negatived, because there was an assurance given that the Bill as it stood, with the Amendments made by the President of the Local Government Board, would give ample security against any interference with existing waterworks. Notwithstanding that, it was still thought to be doubtful, and probably the Government would not object to the introduction of the words, which already existed in the Public Health Act, which were proposed in the House of Commons by a Liberal Member, and which were only negatived in the belief that the Bill as it stood gave ample security.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 7, after the word ("person") to insert the words ("and subject to such restric-
  1730
  tion as is by Section 52 of the Public Health Act, 1875, imposed on a Local Authority'").— (The Earl of Wemyss.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the words as they stood in the clause were sufficient for the purpose mentioned by the noble Earl, who had quoted perfectly correctly the view of the Local Government Board upon this subject. The Government had not the least desire to turn these Councils into bodies for the purpose of carrying out waterworks. As he understood, the Amendment related distinctly to bodies having large powers of water supply, and if it was inserted in the Bill it would rather tend to encourage the idea that these Parish Councils had duties of that kind to perform. In the belief of Her Majesty's Government the words of the subsection as they stood were sufficient for the protection of Corporations in the way described; and they thought that the introduction of those words from the Public Health Act, which dealt especially with the ease of large water supplies, would be entirely inappropriate to the case of Parish Councils, who did not intend to undertake such works.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSasked whether the noble Marquess considered the words in the Bill as they stood would protect a Corporate Waterworks who had no exclusive right by Act of Parliament? He quite agreed that if there were an exclusive right or privilege, it would he protected; but he did not understand that to be the case which the noble Marquess had in view. Lie was quite sure the words would not protect the supply which such a waterworks undertaking would give.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHcalled the noble Marquess's attention to what took place in the other House of Parliament. The words were in the Bill which the President of the Local Government Board referred to at the Committee stage. Those words were these—
  "Or where they can do so without interfering with the rights of any Conservancy Company, or Sanitary Authority."
  When those words were in, undoubtedly the Water Companies had considerable protection; but at a subsequent stage of the Bill, almost without notice, the clause was changed to the form in which it now stood. Of course, he did not mean

  1731
  to impute the smallest bad faith to the Government. The Amendment then made was probably intended only as a drafting Amendment, but he only desired to point out that the words had been changed. It might mean only the right to the water, and not the right to supply, as had been pointed out. He would call the noble Marquess's attention to that fact; and as the Bill now stood, he would find he had been mistaken with regard to this question. If he looked at Sub-section (d), Clause 8, he would find the Parish Council was empowered
  "to utilise any well, spring, or stream within their parish, and provide facilities for obtaining water there from, but without interfering with the right of any Corporation or person."
  Then, by Sub-section (h) they were
  "to execute any works (including works of maintenance or improvement) incidental to or consequential on 'the exercise' of any of the foregoing powers or in relation to any parish property."
  If he would also refer to Clause 8, Subsection 3, he would see it provided that
  "nothing in this section shall derogate from any obligation of a District Council with respect to the supply of water, or the execution of sanitary works."
  Surely, taking all those sections together, there was ground for fearing that it might be hereafter urged that it was the intention of this Bill to authorise the Parish Councils to supply water. No doubt it was to be without interfering with the right of the persons or companies entitled to the water, but the word in the plural had been struck out, and right instead of rights inserted. Right might lie right to water only; lights was, in this context, the wider word. Perhaps it was unfair to press for an answer upon this highly technical point at the present moment; but it seemed, partly on account of the change which was made at the last, stage during the argument on the Bill in the other House, that there was now more reason for the Amendment of his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss) than there was when the Bill was in the House of Commons.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the change to which the noble Lord had alluded was a drafting Amendment, and those words were sufficient for the protection of the Water Companies. However, he would consult, the President of the Local Government Board upon the point before the next stage of the Bill was reached.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the change from the singular to the plural was rather important here, owing to the change in the position of the words.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)did not think the change to which the noble Lord referred made the slightest difference. The power would be just as great as if the lights were to be exercised in the first instance.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSthought, the best course would be not to press this Amendment at the present time, but to reserve the right to bring it forward at a future stage if it should be found necessary. In the meantime, those to whom he had spoken on the matter, and whose case had been so well argued by his noble Friend, would have the opportunity of hearing or reading what had passed, and then, if necessary, he would be prepared to bring the point forward again.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGHasked if the noble and learned Lord would object to putting the word "right" in the plural, and making it "rights"?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the tendency nowadays was to use the singular form. He did not think it would be made stronger by putting it, in the plural.
  LORD HALSBURYdoubted whether, in dealing with a context like this, that view was perfectly accurate. There might be two sets of rights, the right, to the water itself, and the right to supply. It might therefore be advisable to use the singular in the one case; but, if it were confined to the singular in the other, it, expressed what was not intended.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: After that expression of opinion, I hope the noble Marquess will not refuse to give us one "s."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I do not refuse to give it, because the noble Marquess can take it.
  Moved, that the word "right" be omitted, and "rights" inserted in substitution for it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn, to be brought forward if necessary at a future stage.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENproposed to omit Sub-section (e), page 8, to

  1733
  avoid overlapping and conflict of authorities as regarded management. These were entirely new powers to be given to a parish, and there appeared nothing objectionable in the Amendment, which lie hoped Her Majesty's Government would accept.
  Amendment moved, to leave out Subsection (e).—(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the point raised by the noble Earl was provided for in the last section by the words "sewage or drainage works of any Local Authority." The powers given with regard to sanitation were very small, but they referred to just the sort of matters which the people in a parish would be likely to understand better than bodies at a distance. Hs e, therefore, could see no reason for striking out the sub-section.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAYEXsaid, it involved a danger of conflict.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)said, the point was covered by the words in a following section.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYmoved, in line 12, to insert, instead of "without interfering," the words "so as not to interfere," as being better English.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE, in reference to the words "beneficial to any inhabitants of the parish," and "for the benefit of any particular inhabitants of the parish," said they could not possibly mean for the benefit of a private individual desiring to get a right of way over his neighbours' land, and having sufficient interest to get the Parish Council to help him: nor could it be intended to authorize the Parish Councils to undertake private trusts. He suggested in substitution "any class of inhabitants" in both cases.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL)suggested instead, "beneficial to the inhabitants of the parish or any part thereof."
  THE EARL OF SELBORNEaccepted the alteration.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONthought that would meet the case contemplated of a road being required to a railway station for example.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether the acquisition of a right of way merely meant that the Parish Council might use it as an easement for the benefit of the parish? That was nowhere stated, and Lord Dunraven's next Amendment raised the question what was to be done when the right of way was acquired, and for whose benefit it was to be obtained.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, the Parish Council would have power to acquire a right of way without the consent of the adjoining parish, and therefore he moved the insertion of these words.
  Amendment moved,
  In sub-section (1) (f), page 8, line 17, after the word ("parish") to insert the words ("Provided that whore such right of way is with in an adjoining parish, the consent of the Parish Council of such adjoining parish to the acquisition of the right of way shall first be obtained").—(The Earl of Dunrexen)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, the case intended was where a railway station was near the border of a parish and part of another had to be crossed to roach it. For that purpose the power to acquire a right of way was necessary. That was a matter of no interest to people in the other parish, and it would defeat the object in some cases if the consent of a neighbouring Parish Council was made necessary, for they were not always ready to help each other. They would not care a farthing about the other parish having a right of way to the railway station, and might not give their consent.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn, and a similar Amendment in Sub-section (g).
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONmoved an Amendment providing that works in relation to any parish property should not include property relating to affairs of the Church or held for an ecclesiastical charity. The Amendment he proposed was in Subsection (h), which provided for power to execute any works (including works of maintenance or improvement) incidental to or consequential on the exercise of any of the foregoing powers or in relation to any parish property. His difficulty was as to the meaning of the words "in relation to any parish property." He presumed it was not intended to relate to Church property or affairs. The words of the Amendment were taken from Subsection (3) of Clause 6, and he thought

  1735
  it would be better to use the same language here.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 23, after the word ("property") to insert the words ("not being property relating to affairs of the Church or held for an ecclesiastical charity").—(The Bishop of London.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHEEL)said, he would not make any objection at present to the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAmoved a new sub-section giving the Parish Councils power to contribute towards the maintenance of a duly qualified nurse to be employed under medical direction in nursing the sick poor of the parish. He hoped both sides of the House would agree that this was desirable. Their Lordships had been engaged the whole evening in restricting more or less the operation of this Bill—an unthankful task, which they would be glad to vary. Their Lordships would agree that there was no power which would bring more comfort and happiness into the homes of the sick poor than that which he proposed to confer. In large towns little remained to be done, and the nursing movement was making immense progress. It was spreading in country places, but great difficulty was found in rural districts owing to want of means. In the county in which he lived (Lincolnshire) the movement was now being started, and this provision would do much for its assistance. The County Councils, though they had availed themselves in Lincolnshire of their power to vote money for the training of district nurses, were, of course, unable to maintain nurses in their districts afterwards, and this provision would just make the difference whether they could be engaged or not, the power, namely, for Parish Councils to contribute something towards their maintenance. Of course, it would have to be carefully safeguarded, and in the Definition Clause he proposed to insert—
  "The expression 'duly qualified nurse' means a nurse who complies with such conditions as to training and efficiency as may he from time to time prescribed by the Local Government Board."
  He would add nothing in support of an Amendment which was of so entirely a non-contentious character, and hoped it would be accepted in that House, even if
  1736
  it were found necessary to modify it in another place. A public recognition by their Lordships of this necessity in country districts would do a great deal to assist the movement.
  Amendment moved,
  In page 8, line 23, after the word ("and") to insert—("(i.) to contribute towards the maintenance of a duly qualified nurse employed, under medical direction, in nursing the sick poor of the parish").—(The Earl of Winchilsea.)
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, there could be no doubt about the excellence of the noble Lord's object; the only doubt was whether this was a subject for contribution out of the rates. The Bishop of Ripon had an Amendment upon this question of nurses at a later part of the Bill, dealing with existing endowments with that view. There was a good deal to be said for the proposal in that respect; but the Government did not think this a subject for contribution out of the rates, and he hoped, therefore, the Amendment would not be pressed.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONreminded the noble Marquess that the Local Government Board had issued an Order authorising Local Bodies to employ duly trained and qualified nurses at the expense of the rates.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, that was a different matter, and was an argument against the noble Earl's Amendment, because District Councils would in future have power to provide a nurse. It did not seem necessary, therefore, to confer an additional right for that purpose upon Parish Councils.
  THE EARL OF WINCHILSEAsaid, not a single Board of Guardians had acted upon the Local Government Board's Order. However, after what the noble Marquess had said, he would not press the Amendment.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONsaid, this would be a convenient opportunity for terminating their Lordships' labours for the evening, as the next clause dealt with other matters.
  House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Twelve o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.